Good Friday: Sacrifice for Others

Sat, 23 Apr 2011 15:46:03 -0500

Gimme a head of hair,
Long beautiful hair.
Shining, gleaming, streaming, flaxen, waxen,
Give me down to there, hair…
Flow it, show it,
Long as God can grow it,
My hair.
- The Cowsills

Some of us are luckier than others when it comes to growing our hair. Some of us can grow it, thick and wavy, down to there in a year; some of us only wish we could. Some of us love long, flowing tresses, some prefer chic-short. Some of us, don’t have a choice.
When children lose their hair due for medical reasons, such as chemo-therapy or disease, it can be yet another hurdle in an already tough battle. It doesn’t take a pound of flesh to help these children feel just a bit more like their old pre-illness selves; it just takes 8 inches or more of hair. My daughter, Cecily Heuser, and her daughter, Keely, have been doing just that every year on Good Friday, for the past four years. This year, Cecily’s sister, Coral Brady and her mother (me) joined her effort. Since Good Friday, 2010, we’ve been growing our hair. You see, we are blessed with thick, fast-growing hair; and just an 8-inch ponytail can help provide a Cranial Prosthetic for a child.

Our Good Friend, Megan Forty when she went through Chemo

My Grand-daughter, Keely Heuser, Prepares for her Donation

What’s a Cranial Prosthesis (CP)? It’s not the same as a wig or a hairpiece. A CP is made from a mold of the child’s head, comes in the child’s choice of colors, and is made from real hair, individually hand-threaded into the light-weight cap. Best of all, a CP can be worn all the time. I mean ALL the time: camping, swimming, sleep-overs. Anywhere. Because of the unique design, a CP can’t slip or be pulled off, and no glue or tape is required. It’s held to the head by forming a vacuum that only the wearer can break. CPs are so life-like, sometimes even the child’s doctor is fooled.
Angel Hair Foundation and Locks of Love make CPs. Permed, colored (not bleached) and gray hair is accepted. Hair must be clean. The shorter strands of layered hair will be sold to offset some of the costs. Approximately six to ten ponytails go into completing each CP. Most insurance companies cover CPs. Still, both organizations have programs to supply the CPs to those patients in need of financial help.
Maybe growing my hair wasn’t as grueling as walking 60 miles to raise awareness and funds, like we did two summers ago. Still, I was in it for the duration; many days longing for a sharper image, and easier hairstyle. In the summer it was hot, and as time went by, drying and styling time seemed to take forever. Throughout the year, we kept reminding ourselves of the children going through the reverse process, losing hair by the handful, and losing a piece of their identity along the way. For a parent, a bald little head can be a constant outward sign of the battle waging inside her child. A CP can help restore a sense of normalcy.

My good friend and stylist, Renee agreed to cut and style my hair, as her way of giving back. What’s more, her sister-stylists at Mario Tricocci, Crystal Lake, volunteered to do the same. So Shawna, Kendall, Chanel and Renee donated their time; time when they could have been making money styling someone else’s hair. Thanks to Mario Tricoci Salon and Day Spa in Crystal Lake, we all have the space and supplies to end up with a fresh sassy hairstyle and at the same time do some good for others.

Transformed for Easter

Thirty-Eight Years After Roe v Wade

Tue, 1 Feb 2011 15:10:43 -0600

Every year, on the anniversary of Roe v Wade, I set out to share my opinion. Every year I chicken out. I know my opinion is sure to anger both my pro-life and my pro-choice friends, many of whom see things through a black-and-white, all-or-nothing lens. As in so many things in life’s journey, this issue a complex one.
I am pro-life; probably more pro-life than most. Life is good. Life is precious. I wish all people to have a full and meaningful life. I’m in favor abolishing death sentences; I wish for an end to war. I’m against suicides, assisted or otherwise. I pray no woman seeks abortion as an answer to pregnancy. I’m not naive; I know that not all pregnancies are planned and not all babies are born perfect. Still, I believe personal struggle is the root of human strength; as Budha expresses in his “Four Nobel Truths,” life means suffering.
My first-born son was three-month-old when the US Supreme Court made the Roe v Wade decision January 22, 1973; he’s thirty-eight years old now. So much has changed in that time. Back then, I heard my baby’s heartbeat through a stethoscope near the end of the first trimester; felt a flutter of life sometime during the second trimester; and I was told I had a son on the day he was born. Back then, a preemie had little chance of surviving because the lungs lacked surfactants allowing them to expand and the baby to breathe. Back then, in utero diagnosis was next to impossible: ultra-sound was in its infancy and amniocentesis was dangerous. Back then, pregnancy outside of marriage was a shameful secret. Back then, abortion was illegal in most state, including the one I lived in.
Today, I know a grandchild is on the way before I would have even suspected my own pregnancy. Today, I hear and see my unborn grandson in stereo and three-dimensional color earlier than I heard the first heartbeat of my unborn child. Today, with medical treatment, a preemie of less than two pounds can flourish. Today, blood tests from the pregnant woman, and in utero testing can diagnose or predict birth defects. In utero treatment is not only possible, but common. Today, a healthy family can come in a variety of configurations, in addition to the traditional married man and woman. Today, abortion is legal in all 50 states.
This year, on the eve of the anniversary of Roe v Wade, I dug up the Supreme Court Opinion delivered by Justice Blackmun. It is time I understand the prevailing wisdom of that time, deliberated and based on Constitutional soundness. What I found surprised me; perhaps you will feel the same.
The Court thoroughly reviewed abortion laws as far back as ancient Greece, as well as the Hippocratic Oath, which stands, from that ancient time until now, as a standard for medical professionals. The Opinion makes a point that the Supreme Court is not equipped to decide when an individual life begins or when a soul is infused into the individual, that conception is a process, not a moment in time, and that the notion of the individual changes with advancements in science and technology. Religious leaders’ opinion, including that of my Catholic Church’s that an individual’s life begins at conception is a relatively modern concept.
The Hippocratic Oath forbids abortion: “I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion,” and “I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy.” One of my favorite psalms, celebrating the uniqueness of the individual speaks of a process of becoming:
“You made all the delicate, inner parts of my body, and knit them together in my mother’s womb. Thank you for making me so wonderfully complex. It is amazing to think about…You were there while I was being formed in utter seclusion. You saw me before I was born…” (Psalm 139, translation from The Living Bible.)
Common law forbade abortion prior to “quickening”, that first flutter of life a pregnant woman feels somewhere between 13 and 16 weeks of pregnancy. Early Christian theology believed becoming recognizably human occurred over the course of pregnancy and that the soul was infused into the male at 40 days and the female at 80 days. Until the mid-nineteeth century, most states permitted abortion prior to quickening if the mother’s health was in grave danger, or if there were a substantial risk that the child would be severely handicapped.
The underlying root of the Court’s decision is based on whom the Constitution protects: a born person. The Opinion’s pivot point is the wording of the Constitution with its Amendments. The rights of citizens are intended for a born person. The Fourteenth Amendment states:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Although person is not explicitly defined anywhere in the Constitution, in all the places “person” is used, it is used postnatally. Persons unborn are not protected by the Constitution. That said, the Opinion reminds us that no other person’s rights should be infringed either. In other words, no one is required to participate in abortion against his or her conscience. Although the Opinion addresses this subject in terms of the Hippocratic oath and medical professionals, it can and is applied to citizens’ right to prevent funding abortion with tax-payers’ money.
The Opinion disagrees that a woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. Viability outside the womb, even with the assistance of medical intervention is a determining factor in the decision to rule on when a State can step in to “in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life.”
Then, as now, abortion before “quickening”, was as safe, if not safer than carrying a pregnancy to term. The Court decided in favor of the woman’s right to privacy, in much the same way as a couple has a right to privacy in the bedroom and decision in contraception, family relationships, child rearing and education. As in child-rearing, that right is never considered absolute and unqualified.
In much the same way that freed slaves were considered citizens (14th amendment) and women gained protection under the Constitution (18th Amendment), an Amendment is needed to change when an unborn person is protected.
All the stones of rhetoric politicians throw at their opponents and used to enflame Pro-Life voters is nothing more than lip-service at its best, and bamboozlement at its worst. People are encouraged to vote on this one issue, an issue that has little or no chance of being changed without a Constitutional Amendment, while at the same time these very same elected officials often undermine our unalienable rights to, “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” by enacting laws and cutting funds to our most vulnerable and needy citizens. Surely, those who fought for a woman’s right to privacy, those who called for such a difficult medical decision to be between a woman and her physician; even the most ardent pro-choice among us are disappointed that in 2009, 41% of New York City pregnancies ended in abortion and among African American women that number was 60%. (New York Post.) Surely no one hopes that an invasive surgical procedure, no matter how safe, is the method of choice for family planning.
Rather than fight this battle by electing less than sincere public officials, I suggest another tactic to protect life at all stages of development. Let us put away our divisiveness and help each other in our life struggles. Let us elect officials that support life-affirming programs. Let us discourage a volunteer military where the poorest among us are encouraged to put their lives on the line in hopes of an exit from poverty. Let us reform our penal system to abolish the death sentence. Let us provide education, health care, and employment opportunities that lead women to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and let us support laws that help mothers and children in need. Let us foster a society that embraces adoption, both as an infertility option and as a positive choice for birth mothers. Let us work within the wording of the Supreme Court’s Opinion and protect unborn life when it is in the State’s interest by working at the Sate level. Let us make abortion the road less-traveled, the choice of last resort.
Life is rarely simple, nor are the choices we make along our journey. Let’s celebrate the uniqueness and beauty of the life in each of us. Let’s work together to create a life affirming world. In the words of Thomas Merton:
Fill us then with love, and let us be bound together with love as we go our diverse ways, united in this one spirit which makes you present in the world, and which makes you witness to the ultimate reality that is love. Love has overcome. Love is victorious.

The Chicken-The Egg-Salmonella

Mon, 23 Aug 2010 18:34:02 -0500

I got a disconcerting message in my voicemail yesterday. It went something like this:
“Our records indicate you purchased Brand-named Y’s eggs (BNYE) from Big Warehouse Club Z (BYCZ) sometime between April 5 and August 19, 2010. These eggs may be tainted with salmonella and have been recalled. You may return them during regular business hours.”
This is disconcerting to me on at least three distinct levels.
I know that little strip on the back of my membership card, which doubles as a credit card, collects all sorts of my purchasing data, and I suppose I should be happy that BWCZ is kind enough to call me to let me know my BNYE are possibly tainted. Still, this pre-recorded message about the poison in my food seems intrusive and rather big-brotherish. But, that’s only the beginning.
What is anyone doing with eggs still in their refrigerator since the beginnin of April? I consider rummaging through my pile of recyclables to retrieve an egg carton with an April date, just to see the look on the Customer Service Clerk’s face when I return eggs that have been in my refrigerator for a full quarter of the year.
Still, I suppose the thing that really takes the cake is that I should be afraid of my eggs. Doesn’t everyone know that Salmonella and chickens come together? Are people unaware that eggs come out of the orifice of a chicken? I mean what came first, the chicken, or the egg? Or was it Salmonella? Then my microbiologist-mind begins to run wild: Are poultry farmers routinely feeding flocks antibiotics to eliminate Salmonella? Don’t people read anymore: cookbooks, restaurant menus, notes from their mother? When did people stop just knowing that eggs need to be cooked. Okay, Rocky Balboa can get away with drinking raw eggs, but didn’t viewers cringe like I did when Rocky broke those eggs into a blender without benefit of pasteurization, poaching, or even washing. Incredible!
Okay, so here are the facts:
This might gross people out, I know my sister never forgave me when I told her the bare truth about eggs over her sunny-side-up breakfast: the eggs are the reproductive cell of a chicken. Eggs are perfectly designed to support and nurture the growth of a chick. In the white of an egg is something called lysozyme, an enzyme which chews up bacteria. In other words, egg whites have natural protection against bacterial invasion. As a quick aside, there is lysozyme in tears and snot, too. It was discovered because a microbiologist’s nose dripped onto his petri dish and killed his culture.
Egg producers are encouraged to use preventive means like cleaning and sanitizing the chicken houses, feeding chickens Salmonella-free feed, and starting out with Salmonella-free chicks. Flocks are tested regularly and corrective measures taken in order to rid infected chickens of Salmonella. This can only mean slaughter or antibiotics. Antibiotic resistant strains of Salmonella are on the rise.
Egg producers wash the outside of eggs before they go to market. The inside of most eggs are free of Salmonella; if Salmonella gets inside the egg it’s usually confined to the white, unless the egg is old and not refrigerated. Only about 1 in 20,000 eggs has Salmonella inside. This sounds pretty low until you consider how many eggs are sold every year: 75 billion. That means even in the best of situations, there are 7.5 million eggs sold a year with Salmonella.
Although some believe that free-range or organic chickens are free of Salmonella, I doubt it. Salmonella is common in mice, birds flying overhead, and in the soil. Chickens can live with Salmonella like people can live with E. coli; it rarely makes them sick: it’s considered part of their natural flora. (I like this word flora for all the bacteria blooming around us, because face it, we eacg have more bacterial cells in and on our bodies, than human cells. It’s true. Really.)
Even though there is a chance of getting Salmonella from an egg, that’s not the most likely source. Some of your best friends may be carriers: Dogs, cats, turtles, and even your neighbor may be carriers with no symptoms. Up to half of dogs, a third of cats, and 1 in five people carry Salmonella. So be careful who you let prepare your food, or lick your face.
Please cook your eggs. If a recipe calls for raw eggs, perhaps you like home-made mayonnaise or Caesar salad dressing, buy pasteurized eggs. Salmonella is out there in the environment. There’s no such thing as risk-free eggs. Please use safe food handling techniques. All the time.
And as for disconcerting voice-mail messages: Thank you, and Delete.

Women Find a Friend in Fight Against Breast Cancer

Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:50:31 -0600

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Urge Improved Screening

Now isn’t that better? Let’s get the focus right. The US Department of Health & Human Services’ recent study results do not urge women to abandon mammograms or to stop self-breast exams. Rather, it recommends development of new and improved methods, so we can better diagnose breast cancer and thus avoid unnecessary surgery, treatment, and anxiety. So while the popular press is getting everyone up in arms about the government trying to take our mammography away, and congress is reassuring us that won’t happen, the real message is lost in the frenzy.
I first read about the Breast Cancer Screening study November 18, in the Washington Post. The Post suggested that women didn’t need to have mammograms until after 50, then only every two years; that women over 74 didn’t need them at all; that doctors stop performing breast exams in the office and to abandon teaching women how to do self-breast exams. One in 8 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer sometime in their life, one in thirty will die from breast cancer. The older we get, the more likely we are to be diagnosed with breast cancer. With these odds, my response was “What are we supposed to do then? Just wait until we notice a lump in the mirror?” I felt compelled to look up the actual study, so I went to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality website, We should be applauding the US Preventive Service Task Force (USPSTF) for commissioning the study, rather than wringing our hands in dismay.
First a little background into the scientific method, which we all learned about in grade-school. Most of us are no longer as smart as a fifth-grader, or at least we can use a little “oh, yeah, I remember that…”
Start with propose the hypothesis, design a study, analyze the results, and come to conclusions. Simple as this may sound, things often go awry. The study must be designed to answer the question posed in the hypothesis, and the conclusions must be related to the questions asked. In it’s purest form, the conclusion states whether or not the hypothesis is correct or not.
The Hypotheses
The goal was to look at statistics from existing studies to determine just how effective breast cancer screening is. USPSTF posed these questions:
Does mammography reduce the breast cancer mortality rates among women over a broad range of ages when compared with usual care? If so, does mammography reduce breast cancer mortality rates among women 40 to 49 years of age when compared with usual care?
The Study
USPSTF reviewed 154 publications and took data from 8 different randomized trials of screening mammography ad two trials of breast self-examination (BSE). Close to 600,000 women were followed for 11-18 years in these 8 studies.
The Results
USPSTF reported on the Sensitivity, Specificity, and Effectiveness of mammography, as well as adverse effects.
Sensitivity: Of the women in the studies diagnosed with breast cancer, 70% to 96% were detected by mammography. The sensitivity was lower with women in their 40s than for older women. Population statistics tell us what happens with women as a whole, but cannot be applied to individuals. There are many variables that can effect a woman’s chance of an accurate diagnosis: hormone therapy, breast density, experience of the radiologist, etc.
Specificity: The older the woman gets the more likely a positive mammography is actually cancer. For women in their 40s only 1-4% positive mammograms will be cancer; for women in their 50s, 4-9%; for women in their 60s, 10-19%; and for women in their 70s, 18-20%.
Effectiveness: For women getting mammograms at age 40-49, about 1400 women must be screened for 14 years in order to save one woman from dying of breast cancer. Women 50 years or older, one death can be prevented by screening about 840 women for 14 years. The effectiveness did not change when combined with a breast exam in the doctor’s office, or with self-breast exams.
Adverse effects: Most women in the study expressed discomfort, anxiety and concern about associated positives mammograms and follow up tests. Almost all of the women (99%) knew that there is a potential of a false positive result, however most did not understand how likely that was. Still, 2/3 of the women were willing to undergo 500 false positive test results if it meant saving one life.
Most women (94%) are unaware that a non-progressive form of cancer, ducal carcinoma in situ, or DCIS, is diagnosed with mammograms. Most of these cancers are not life-threatening, yet 67% are treated with radiation, lumpectomy, or mastectomy. There is a chance that the radiation from mammograms may actually induce cancer. For 100,000 women getting mammograms from age 40 on, there may be up to 8 deaths induced by the radiation.
The Conclusions
The risk of false positives and the consequences decreases with age. The balance between increasing risk and decreasing harms is more favorable over time. Women over 70 have a higher risk of cancer, and also a higher incidence of DCIS, which is not life threatening. Women over 70 statistically are more likely to be suffering from other diseases that shorten their life, and less tolerant of aggressive cancer treatments. Doctors’ exams and self-exam did not reduce the chances of dying from breast cancer.
Contrary to what the press reports, the study does not recommend abandoning any of the current methods of detecting breast cancer.
The recommendations are so important that I will quote them from the report:
Future research should be directed toward developing new screening methods as well as methods of improving the sensitivity and specificity of mammography. Methods of reducing surgical biopsy rates and complications of treatment should also be studied, as should communication of the risks and benefits associated with screening to patients. Finally, efforts to identify breast cancer risk factors with high attributable risk, as well as appropriate prevention strategies, should continue. Even in the best screening settings, most deaths from breast cancer are not currently prevented.

The Cost of Progress

Sun, 18 Oct 2009 13:58:28 -0500

A little over a year ago, Congress approved the biggest financial rescue in US history. Some call it the Neo-New Deal; others doom the bailout to failure. Surely it will take a Herculean effort to turn things around. We all know that default on sub-prime mortgages is driving much of the calamity. But why are there still so many people defaulting on their mortgages. Perhaps we should look deeper and address the reasons some people are faced with this predicament. The root of the problem began long ago.
Flash back to 1992. I am the sole provider for my four teenagers and myself: my two sons, Chip and Seth, and my two daughters, Cecily and Coral. Today is a school day. Chip is in his first year at DePaul University. Seth and Cecily go to Prospect High School. There’s a wrestling meet tonight. I washed uniforms for the team last night, so now I throw them in the drier and push start. Cecily greets my “good morning” with a scowl. Coral goes to Elmhust Junior High, she’s in Special Education, a “contained classroom.” It’s an orchestrated dance in the morning as we boogie in and out of the only shower, and waltz past each other with toiletries in tow to use the powder room mirror. I’ve got my hair cut Demi-Moore-short-as-in-Ghost, so styling is just a shake of the head. We all sit down to breakfast together, a ritual I insist upon. Departures are staggered. I’m in the car, as the last school bus leaves; I’ll drop Chip at the train station on my way to work. Amidst the flurry of activity, my mind turns to work: Something is up today.
We have our Quarterly Business Review Meeting today. Three times already this year we’ve had an all-shift, all-hands-on deck meeting with the Vice President of Manufacturing, Joe Podolski. Fast and Cheap Joe; he’s known for his ability to get the job done on a shoestring. At each of these meeting, I find out some of my colleagues gone. I look around the room, and chairs that were saved are empty. It’s like The Rapture. Those of us who remain, look around for our friends; they are gone. Right-sized.
Those that remain get a “pep rally.” Different verses but the same song: We’re in this together. We’ve got lofty goals to obtain. Our objectives are clear. Those of us that are left have what it takes to get it done. One time there was even a marching band. No lie.
The last time I was sure I’d be the one spirited away. But I remain working in the field, so to speak. I’m pretty sure it won’t be me today. I am working on critical projects that are key to the company’s success. But, who will it be? We’re down from 105 to 55. How far from the right size can we possibly be? Maybe I’m just paranoid and it’s just a quarterly business meeting like the notice on the bulletin board says.
Because the meeting is all-shift, all-hands meeting, we go across the street to the warehouse. A freshly filled coffee mug warms my hands. Inez, Ivory, Ken, and I start to walk through the door, single file. I’m just about to walk pass the threshold when I get a tap on my left shoulder. It’s The Boss, Pat. He beckons me with his index finger, like a friend with a juicy piece of gossip he wants to share. As usual, his breath smells like a dog’s that’s been eating crap. My heart drops to my stomach; I know, without a doubt, I’ve been chosen.
Pat takes me to his office and introduces me to Kathy Kilroy from The Mentor Company, the outplacement firm. She’s got on a royal blue suit. Her silk print blouse has swirls of royal blue that match her suit exactly, and swirls of power red, too. She looks so professional. I have on a plain white uniform. Kathy explains the re-deployment process. She’s got the brownest eyes; I can’t even see her irises. Her eyes look wet. My sister has eyes like that, big brown cow-eyes. Kathy hands me a pocket folder that contains all the information I need to know about my severance. She asks me if I have any questions. The only question I can think of is, Did Mentor hire you because your eyes look so sad? Or did they teach you how to look like you really care?
Fast forward to 2007, sixteen years later. I landed on my feet; I’m on the other side of the table now. No one is right-sizing anymore. We’re becoming Lean. I’ve been asked to take the faces out of the picture. The ratio of Quality Assurance to the rest of the company is too high. I must cut four Full Time Equivalents (FTE.) I must find ways to be more efficient. I know FTEs are real people with real families, mortgages, and car payments. James just moved his wife and two little girls into their first house. I know that getting more efficient really means some people will be jobless, and everyone else will have more work to do.
I calculate a more efficient way of improving the ratio. I’ll move the people and some of their responsibilities to other departments. That increases their numbers and decreases mine. (Bigger denominator, smaller numerator equals a smaller ratio. I’m at least as smart as a fifth grader.) There is more work for some people, but at least no one is sacrificed. I bought some time, but not for long. Within a year our facility will be shut down: our technology will be sold, most likely moved off-shore, and everyone in this little subsidiary of a giant conglomerate will be out of a job.
In September 2008, 159,000 US workers became unemployed, 760,000 people lost their jobs so far this same year. While the merit of biggest rescue of the financial system in US history continues to be hotly discussed, the home foreclosures continue to rise. One in every 84 homes got a foreclosure notice in the first half of 2009 or 1.7 million foreclosures. Picture every home in the Chicago suburbs empty with a yellow foreclosure sticker on the front window. Those foreclosures are connected to real people unable to make house payments, many of them without jobs. How did we get to this?
In 1910, Henry Ford took the people, the tools, and the machines needed to make cars and created the first continuous system for manufacturing. What came out the other end of that assembly line was the Model T. By 1914, Ford made the automobile reasonably priced and paid the men on the assembly line $5.00 a day, an unheard of wage, it was more than double the rate of the rest of industry. Ford also introduced the 8-hour day, and the 5-day workweek. As a result, the best mechanics flocked to Detroit. What had been an abysmal turnover rate became so small Ford stopped measuring. What’s more, Ford employees could afford a car, expanding the market. Henry Ford considered the people his greatest asset. He believed that smart managers would do right by their employees because it fostered productivity, which led to profits. Without fully understanding the concepts of what is now called Lean Manufacturing, and the inherent value of the people, many copied Ford’s techniques, but failed to achieve his success.
Climbing out of the rubble of World War II, the folks at Toyota studied Henry Ford’s strategy. Toyota capitalized on what was considered the key element of Ford’s continuous manufacturing system — the people. By engaging employees in Quality Circles, Toyota launched a culture of incremental improvements and developed an ear for the customers’ needs. Toyota employees are encouraged to introduce efficiencies in the manufacturing systems in order to respond quickly to the customers’ heart’s-desire.
Toyota’s and the Japanese loyalty to employees create a culture of trust. Handbooks on Lean Manufacturing stress that employees must feel secure, not fearful of losing their job, in order for the system to work. Unfortunately, like Ford, Toyota copycats’ misapplication of the basic principles led to distortion.
Today, US companies distort Toyota’s system into what is known as the Lean Enterprise Initiative. Rather than a means of becoming more agile and responsive to customers, Lean is used to reduce head-count, and improve profitability. Ominous in its application, employees are trained and encouraged to map their work processes, calculate the FTEs required for the job. From here these very employees are asked to streamline the processes, and out-source where possible, all to become more efficient. Next, calculated FTEs for the improved process do not justify employing as many people. In the name of efficiency, the unemployment lines swell.
Unemployment in the US now at nearly 10%, that’s 14.9 million people are out of work and looking for a job. The number of people looking for a job today is equivalent the entire population of New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles combined. That number only tells a part of the story. It does not include people like Irene, who was a well-paid manager at United Airline, and now waits tables part time at a local restaurant. She is no longer unemployed, but she makes minimum wage, with unpredictable hours and no benefits. The numbers do not include Mike, who closed his fledgling carpentry business. When home sales slumped, he could not afford the high cost of medical insurance. He now drives two hours to work as a laborer, just so he can afford the health insurance necessary to help cover the cost of his wife’s expensive prescription medicine. The numbers do not include those people who exhausted their benefits, are still unemployed, but no longer are included in the count.
Rescuing Wall Street with an infusion of over $800 billion seems like Hercules fighting the mythical Hydra, the many-headed sea creature who spit venom and had poisonous blood. Hydra grew two heads for each one Hercules managed to sever. Only with the help of Iolaus, was Hercules able to seal the wounds with fire and to finally stab Hydra with an arrow dipped in poison. It is time for us to address, not just the flailing head of the financial problem, but to address the heart of the matter, our disregard for the human element. We must recognize people as the valuable resource they are, not as a number on a balance sheet. Until we do so, throwing money at one aspect of the financial debacle, fails to address the root of the problem. The monster continues to live, only to rear her ugly head again, perhaps when we least expect.