The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age

    A Reason to be Grateful.

    Truth be told, I haven't been feeling the Thanksgiving spirit. Looking outward, it is difficult to see past the smoldering economic rubble that fills the lives of so many of those dear to me from my own tenuous outpost on the edge. With no plausible course of action on the horizon to bring appropriately wide-scale relief, let alone begin the rejuvenation and rebuilding that our system and society so desperately need, the call to dig deeper and muster up some tritism to serve as my offering on the alter of national habit has mostly just served to highlight a situation so grave for so many people that reveling in an annual orgy of gluttonous overconsumption simply feels a microcosm for so many of our current ills.

    I'm grateful for Black Friday and cramming more victuals down my gullet in one sitting than many households (including my own) should responsibly make last for an entire week in the current economy! Yay.

    So it was, under a dark cloud, that I wandered the internets ... sampling the fluff-headed bullshit offered up by the pretty people, self-centered fluff from those who's biggest concern in life is sports, and obligatory self-absolving highlights of whatever local groups spent their day providing a once-annual decent meal to ever growing ranks of the poors. Not much of a silver lining in sight. At Fire Dog Lake, Dakine manages to one-up my malaise by missing the point entirely.

    Clearly the time had come to move past Thanksgiving 2011.

    Also at FDL, Jane Hamsher has adopted the OWS movement with a unique combination of self-promotion and activism that has pretty much become a hallmark. The result is a campaign to help supply protest participants at various sites with items they need to sustain protest. Building on the groups pro-worker/pro-union posture, the supply campaign is being carried out with strong focus on sourcing from Union manufacturers - if none can be found, they are "at least" trying to find products made made in America. Totally cool. Unfortunately, with the state of American manufacturing, this has been somewhat challenging. So Jane has raised a general call asking people to highlight union/American manufacturers that might be able to provide needed supplies.

    Now, Idaho isn't really a big union state. Nor is Idaho known for a great deal of manufacturing. So, I figured even on the off-chance we made something here that would be useful, our vendors would likely not be considered. But the seed had been planted. I became curious what sort of stuff Idaho's manufacturers might actually be able to provide.

    I never did find an Idaho producer for any of the items that Hamsher is seeking, but I did find something else. A company with the initially promising name "Idaho Sewing for Sports." This is a woman-owned business run by Gail and Gunther Williams in Grangeville Idaho. The company makes various pads/coverings custom designed for the ski-resort industry; chairlift seat cushions, pole-wrappings, toboggan covers, stuff like that. Poking around, I discovered that the company does not directly sell their tubing products to the public and instead direct potential customers to "Residual Enterprises" in order to make their purchase. That's when I realized the Williams' and their business represent so much about the America we dream of - an example of what is right in the American family.

    Residual Enterprises is a partially incomplete Word-Press site that appears to be a side-project of the Williams family to generate money for local charities through exclusive retail sale of Idaho Sewing's snow tube products. It is also a general site to promote the idea of business service within the community by celebrating instances of such service. Here, with understated modesty, we find a recent article written about Idaho Sewing (along with a handful of other businesses).

    Gunther Williams’ family business, Idaho Sewing for Sports Inc. of Grangeville, Idaho, was hit hard by the recession. But laying off employees didn’t sit well with him. It seemed counterproductive to let skilled employees go in order to save the business, he says. So in January 2010, as work began to pick up, Williams took what some might consider a radical action—he brought back all of the company’s furloughed employees full time, with a twist.

    “I decided we needed to do more in the community,” he says. “We changed our model of giving back, if you will, which had been writing a check when we could afford it. I had a hard time doing that when my own people had trouble buying groceries. I brought everyone back to work and said, ‘Let’s go out into the community. I’ll pay you to do that.’”

    Williams’ employees each now spend up to four paid hours a week volunteering in the community. Some help out in their child’s classroom, others at the local food bank, and one employee with a passion for American history is helping a museum transcribe historical documents. Business has rebounded as well, but Williams is committed to allowing each employee four hours a week to volunteer in the community, even if work reaches capacity. While it’s too early to see how this plan will affect his business, he views it as an investment in his employees and the community they live in, as opposed to an expense.

    “We’ve always had the idea around here that the purpose of the business was to bless the lives of our employees,” he says.

    The article then moves on to highlight more traditional - and directly financially beneficial to those involved - relationships between businesses and their communities, but the Williams' business is something that deserves special consideration. In a world where so-called liberal democrats discuss if the latest round of tax breaks and incentives will give them the right combination of personal benefits to maybe hire, and so-called conservative capitalists discuss if the latest round of QE will this time move trillions or merely billions from the public coffers into their personal bank accounts - this family business took the bull by the horns and didn't even question if it was fair that everyone else would not be forced to invest in the community equally before embarking on their uplifting course of action.

    They don't brag about it on their company web site and the only cross-link is to the snow-tube order page that directly benefits local charities in Grangeville.

    Who among us, as business owners or workers, can say we have embodied that level of dedication in our service to community? I am very proud that my family businesses have always approached our employee relationships with similar underlying beliefs to those expressed. Even so, the decisions made at Idaho Sewing For Sports in empowering their employees and the wider community during difficult times, to me, provide an inspirational example. If actions really speak louder than words, this should be a 10,000 decibel megaphone.

    The Residual Enterprises website alludes to a Christian foundation, but I don't have any idea of the politics that underlie these people's choices. To me this represents what I view as a libertarian ideal. But truly no ideology has a monopoly on self-initiated service to community, just as no ideology has a monopoly on caring about their fellow man and just as no ideology has a monopoly on a desire for profit. The choices made seem completely compatible with almost any basic ideological philosophy - when ideology is descibed by adherants rather than adversaries. Is this anti-Democrat? Anti-Republican? Socialism? Anti-Libertarian? The answer to all appears to be no. Every bit as much as OWS represents an important step in demaning a better policy approach, reimagining the basis of our relationships between business and community is crucial to finding a successful economic path forward.

    Too often we choose the most petty and superficial points of debate. Weather distilling a lifetime of thought and public speaking into a handful of out-of-context quotes used as a foil to justify profanity-laced tirades directed at those who dare envision a different approach or a simple dismissal with a single-word epithet ... we are smothering in our own cocoons of self-righteous and self-important unchallengeable orthodoxy rather than engage concepts and accept the outcomes of debate on the merit of ideas as actually presented.

    Does it really matter one iota if these people want to vote for Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Barack Obama ... or someone else entirely? For just one day, can't we all agree that no matter what their politics - these people are simply a blessing to our nation?

    Today I am grateful for contributions that Gail and Gunther Williams have made to our state, our nation and our business community ... and find myself inspired on a day when I truly expected no inspiration would come.

    (originally posted at: kgblogz)

    Comments

    Yessum.

    Happy Thanksgiving Williams Family!!!


    Gunther Williams’ family business, Idaho Sewing for Sports Inc. of Grangeville, Idaho, was hit hard by the recession. But laying off employees didn’t sit well with him. It seemed counterproductive to let skilled employees go in order to save the business, he says. So in January 2010, as work began to pick up, Williams took what some might consider a radical action—he brought back all of the company’s furloughed employees full time, with a twist.

    I'm a little unclear on this, and perhaps you don't know either.

    It sounds like he first furloughed these employees because he felt he couldn't afford to keep them on. In fact, it sounds like he felt that doing so was necessary to "saving the business"--that keeping them on would kill the business.

    Presumably, letting these folks go would save the business and give him enough money to write checks to charity, etc.

    But then, I guess, he decided that he didn't need to fire them to save the business. He could bring them back full time, and even pay them to go out into the community--and, in fact, the business didn't go under.

    So are we to think that he miscalculated when he first decided to let those employees go? Or was it that he had traditionally factored a higher profit margin (along with money to give back) into what he thought the business could afford without going out of business?

    I know this is off the beaten track from what your main point--which I applaud--but I'm curious about the nuts and bolts.

    Two of the things we hear, primarily from conservatives, is: 1) you can't count on people "doing good" (or doing much of anything) unless there's a financial incentive. A water-seeks-its-own-level sort of argument. So here, even if we say he miscalculated what he could really afford, there is the question: Is it realistic to count on people going the extra mile, when the path of least resistance is always beckoning?

    2) Sorry, can't remember the second one...

     


    My take is at one point, their business declined to the level that they had no choice but to furlough folks (that's pretty much where I've been stuck for going on two years now ... so I must cop to a bit of projection here).

    When business picked back up, it provided the company with options how to proceed. Looking out across the need in their community and the need in their family of workers, they wanted to help both (I imagine it's a small enough community so that the distinction was probably a bit more blurred than it would be in a big city). Up to that point, the way the company had approached helping the community was to write a check. But "business picking up" is by no means the same as flush with cash. Faced with furloughed workers who needed to get back on the job, not enough work hours to keep them busy, and a great need in the community; the company took stock of their resources and innovated.

    A really cool thing is that the company has now embraced that innovation and made it a part of it's long-term operational policy. The thought processes behind this decision are a big part of what I think we business owners need to deeply ponder.

    Is it realistic to count on people going the extra mile, when the path of least resistance is always beckoning?

    Of course not, but you are asking the wrong question. To me the question that this story brings to mind: will *YOU* go the extra mile even though you can not count on anyone else doing so?

    Or are we so caught up in the idea that willingly giving more than someone else is forced to give would be so unfair as to be a perfect justification for doing nothing at all?

    As cmaukonen said on a FDL post yesterday (loosely paraphrased) - until we stop sucking so bad as people, our government is destined to suck. A corollary to this could be that if everyone behaved as this company has, we wouldn't need to look to the government to sustain our communities with a Keynesian response that basically boils down to "Wise economists show that the government must save us ... therefore it's not my responsibility."

    Don't get me wrong, clearly at this point a proper course-correction is going to have to involve a certain disgorgement by the government simply to restore equity to all national stakeholders - it was the vehicle used to create the current inequitable situation. The most effective mechanism to accomplish this is a Keynesian-style investment in national infrastructure. This in turn is going to require recovery of expropriated funds. In the current situation, I diverge somewhat from classic Keynes in that I feel the bulk of required revenue should come from taxing the shit out the people who ripped us off in order to recover stolen money rather than putting it all on our national charge account and allowing crooks to keep their ill-gotten gains.

    BUT, and this is important, the government doesn't exist to force Americans not to suck. It is an extension of us. In that, the libertarians are right.

    There is an ownership and personal responsibility component to growing and embracing healthy communities that is pretty much entirely lacking in the Democratic orthodoxy. If the government doesn't do it for you - it doesn't get done. But that's only true if we refuse to do it on our own.


    Head too full of beer for coherent response, but overall, looks like a gold nugget you dropped in here.


    I think you have the beginnings of a manifesto;

    Whatever may or not stimulate the market ecology, no harm will come from punishing the people who most obviously took the money and ran. We have to start somewhere.