Sunday, May 19, 2002
“… and you'll still get paid, but you don't have to show up for work.”
Shuttering Ferndale's Intalco plant would save the BPA about $600 million—money the BPA would have spent to buy overpriced energy on the free market in order to honor its contract allotment and price for Intalco. As part of this money-saving deal, BPA offered to pay most Intalco employees not to work for those two years.
Via Flutterby, Remember the Lesbian Prom King?
Two years of pay.
And you don't even have to show up at the plant.
Sign me up.
Continued in the article, the people of Ferndale were worried that the plant would not open again after two years. A valid concern yes, but if I were faced with such a prospect (two years of sitting at home and getting paid to do so) I think I would take the opportunity presented and run with it.
Two years. Possibly start a new business. Or go to the library or local community school and pick up new skills that might serve me if the plant doesn't open again. Or heck, you have two years to find another job. Are people that defined by their jobs?
Perceptions of ownership
Continuing in missing the big picture for the small details is this quote I found in a rather long article (via CamWorld) about beating Microsoft:
… its war with Microsoft. AOL (owned by the parent company of this magazine) …
Funny, I thought AOL owned Time/Warner, not the other way around. Now, it might be that the reporter is ignorant of who owns who, but I wonder if this isn't the feeling around Time/Warner—they bought AOL and not the other way around.
Or is it that AOL is owned by AOL Time/Warner, which also owns Business 2.0? Or could it be that no one knows who owns who but does it really matter anyway?
I think I'm getting a headache.
