Fighting linkrot one article at a time.


+= =+


The Bellman


+= =+


Zwichenzug


+= =+

Archives


April 2004  

May 2004  

May 2005  

June 2005  

July 2005  

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Zwichenzug Holding Zone

 
George Lucas aiming to release the Star Wars movies in 3D - MovieWeb

According to The Hollywood Reporter, George Lucas is such a fan of the latest 3-D technology that he is planning to remaster all of the Star Wars films for rerelease in 3-D.

Appearing as part of a sextet of high-profile directors promoting 3-D and digital cinema at ShoWest on Thursday, Lucas said he hadn't yet committed to a precise schedule but hoped to have the first film ready for the 30th anniversary of the original Star Wars movie in 2007 and that he would then rerelease one Star Wars film per year in 3-D.

Lucas was joined by James Cameron, Robert Zemeckis, Robert Rodriguez and Randal Kleiser. Peter Jackson joined the group via a pretaped 3-D segment. They all implored the exhibition community to invest in digital projectors, which would allow theaters to show their upcoming movies in 3-D. Cameron is in preproduction on the 3-D film Battle Angel, planned for a 2007 release. Zemeckis has two 3-D features in production, and Rodriguez is readying The Adventures of Shark Boy & Lava Girl in 3-D for release in the summer. Jackson, who is currently filming King Kong, announced no specific 3-D plans, but according to sources he has installed a 3-D master suite in his production offices in New Zealand.

 
Dangerrrr: cats could alter your personality

Times Online
eptember 21, 2003

The Sunday Times

Dangerrrr: cats could alter your personality
Jonathan Leake, Science Editor

THEY may look like lovable pets but Britain’s estimated 9m domestic cats are being blamed by scientists for infecting up to half the population with a parasite that can alter people’s personalities.
The startling figures emerge from studies into toxoplasma gondii, a parasite carried by almost all the country’s feline population. They show that half of Britain’s human population carry the parasite in their brains, and that infected people may undergo slow but crucial changes in their behaviour.

Infected men, suggests one new study, tend to become more aggressive, scruffy, antisocial and are less attractive. Women, on the other hand, appear to exhibit the “sex kitten” effect, becoming less trustworthy, more desirable, fun- loving and possibly more promiscuous.

Interestingly, for those who draw glib conclusions about national stereotypes, the number of people infected in France is much higher than in the UK.

The findings will not please cat lovers. The research — conducted at universities in Britain, the Czech Republic and America — was sponsored by the Stanley Research Medical Institute of Maryland, a leading centre for the study of mental illness. The institute has already published research showing that people infected with the toxoplasma parasite are at greater risk of developing schizophrenia and manic depression.

The study into more subtle changes in human personality is being carried out by Professor Jaroslav Flegr of Charles University in Prague. In one study he subjected more than 300 volunteers to personality profiling while also testing them for toxoplasma.

He found the women infected with toxoplasma spent more money on clothes and were consistently rated as more attractive. “We found they were more easy-going, more warm-hearted, had more friends and cared more about how they looked,” he said. “However, they were also less trustworthy and had more relationships with men.”

By contrast, the infected men appeared to suffer from the “alley cat” effect: becoming less well groomed undesirable loners who were more willing to fight. They were more likely to be suspicious and jealous. “They tended to dislike following rules,” Flegr said.

He also discovered that people infected with toxoplasma had delayed reaction times — and are at greater risk of being involved in car accidents. “Toxoplasma infection, could represent a serious and highly underestimated economic and public health problem,” he said.”

In Britain, concern over toxoplasma is growing among health experts — especially as the number of pet cats has grown to about 9m. Roland Salmon, an epidemiologist with the National Public Health Service for Wales, said: “The evidence is that cats are the main cause of infection.”

Toxoplasma moves in a natural cycle between rats and cats. Rats acquire it from contact with cat faeces and cats reacquire it from hunting infected rats. It has long been known that humans can become infected with the parasite through close contact with cats.

Pregnant women are advised to keep clear of the animals because the parasite can damage unborn babies. People with damaged immune systems, such as Aids victims, are also vulnerable.

Until now, however, the parasite has always been thought harmless to healthy people because their immune systems could suppress the infection. But this view seems certain to change, especially in the light of research at Oxford University.

Scientists there have found that when the parasite invades rats it somehow reprograms their brains, reversing their natural fear of cats. It is this same ability to destroy natural inhibitions that is thought to be at work in humans.

Doctors Manuel Berdoy and Joanne Webster at Oxford University are studying how toxoplasma alters rat behaviour and the chemical weapons it uses to subvert the brain.
Berdoy said: “The fact that a single-celled parasite can have such an effect on the mammalian or even human brain is amazing.”

One startling fact to emerge from research is the great differences in levels of infection. In France and Germany, for example, about 80%-90% of people are infected — nearly twice that in Britain or America.

“I am French and I have even wondered if there is an effect on national character,” Berdoy said.

Dr Dominique Soldati, a researcher at Imperial College in London, is studying ways of blocking toxoplasma from getting into cells. “Once you are infected you cannot get rid of this parasite and the numbers of them slowly grow over the years,” she said. “It’s not a nice thought.”

Copyright 2005 Times Newspapers Ltd.
 
It's Insurance a la Cart: Costco Stores to Market Health Plans

Los Angeles Times

By Debora Vrana
Times Staff Writer

June 9, 2005

Costco Wholesale Corp., the low-cost bulk supplier of breakfast cereal, motor oil and diamond rings, is adding health insurance to its warehouse shelves.

In a pilot program to be launched next month in Southern California, Costco will offer family and individual coverage to its customers who pay $100 a year for "executive" membership, company officials said. The insurance is aimed at people such as contractors, waiters and students who are self-employed or cannot sign up for plans at work.

Although other discount stores such as Wal-Mart and Target have begun offering limited health services in their stores, Costco says it will be the first to offer insurance to members. About 18 million households nationally belong to Costco, including 3.4 million who pay for executive membership.

Company officials would not quote premiums but said the insurance would be 5% to 20% cheaper than policies individuals could buy on their own. Costco expects to offer coverage statewide by the end of the year and may eventually make it available to regular members, said Dellanie Fragnoli, assistant vice president of insurance services at Issaquah, Wash.-based Costco.

"It's one of the more requested services by our members," Fragnoli said.

Since 2003, Costco has offered group health insurance to its small-business members in the West through Cypress-based PacifiCare Health Systems Inc., said Cheryl Randolph, spokeswoman for PacifiCare.

The new program, also offered through PacifiCare, will be different in that it is tailored to individuals and families.

The preferred-provider plan, also known as a PPO, which encourages members to see participating doctors, will come in two forms offering similar benefits. One option will have a $1,500 annual deductible for individuals and a $3,000 deductible for families. The other, with lower premiums, will have deductibles twice as high, Costco said.

Coverage for both plans will include prescription drugs; co-payments for most office visits will be $35. Premiums will vary depending on age, location and health status.

Initially available only through Costco's 34 warehouses in Los Angeles, Orange and parts of Riverside and San Bernardino counties, the plan will be sold over the Internet and through a call center.

Costco can offer a discount in part because of lower administration, advertising and brokerage costs, Randolph said.

"They believe they can be cheaper than everyone else, not because of the bulk or the [lack of] frills, but because they are cutting out the middlemen, the broker," said J.D. Kleinke, a healthcare economist in Portland, Ore.

Costco is licensed to sell health insurance and receives a commission, but it "is significantly lower than what is generally paid," Fragnoli said.

Kleinke said consumers didn't really care who their health insurance provider was.

"They just want the cheapest way to see their doctor," Kleinke said.

Although discount retailers selling health insurance may seem like an odd mix, it points out the need consumers have for alternatives, given the rising costs of health insurance, Kleinke said.

Other major retailers including Target Corp. and Longs Drug Stores Corp. also have moved into the healthcare arena. At some Target stores in Minneapolis, shoppers can visit walk-up clinics staffed mostly by nurse practitioners for minor ailments, such as a bladder infection or seasonal allergies, with no appointment and little or no waiting. Target is contracting with Minneapolis-based MinuteClinic Inc. to run the clinics.

In Davis, Calif., this year, Longs unveiled its own in-store clinic. And also this year, the Wal-Mart Stores Inc.-operated Sam's Club began offering a discount program to members that cuts by as much as 50% the cost of some health services not covered by insurance, such as laser eye surgery and dental care.

This area is going to continue to grow, predict healthcare specialists like Kleinke, as rising costs push people to find new ways to insure themselves.

"We're not going to solve this problem," Fragnoli said. But "there is some value in Costco being in the arena. It keeps the providers on their toes."

Copyright 2005 Los Angeles Times
 
Update: Hotels Vote to Lock Out Workers

Los Angeles Business Journal Online

By DAVID GREENBERG
Los Angeles Business Journal Staff
Six L.A. area hotels agreed to lock out 2,380 unionized workers after Unite HERE members walked off the job at the Hyatt West Hollywood, a member of a bargaining group with the other six hotels.

The Los Angeles Hotel Employer’s Council voted late Thursday in favor of the lockout after about 120 workers struck the Hyatt West Hollywood over health care reimbursements. The hotels said the lockout would not take effect until midnight Saturday, giving the union time to accept a "best and final" contract offer.

“This is what we call a defensive lockout – it comes in response to a strike,” said Fred Muir, consultant to the hotel council.

Tensions have been high since a contract between Unite HERE Local 11 and nine large hotels expired in April 2004. (Two have since dropped out.) The union has been seeking to align contract expiration dates throughout the country in 2006. The hotels have offered substantial pay increases but they want a longer contract.

The health care payments arose from earlier negotiations. To put pressure on the union, the hotels began deducting $40 in monthly health care premiums last July, but then stopped making the deductions in January. Since then, the union has been seeking reimbursement for premiums the workers paid in the interim.

David Koff, research analyst for Unite HERE, said the local’s 2,500 workers were forced to pay more than $650,000 in health care premiums.

“This has been an issue that agitated the workers from the beginning,” said Koff. “We started at this hotel but it could expand.”

The union is looking for a two-year agreement that would be retroactive to April 15, 2004, when the previous contract expired. That would line Local 11’s agreement with those in several other cities, giving the union more bargaining power.

© 2005 Los Angeles Business Journal Associates
 
Frosty reception for hotels' offer / Co-payment changes fail to impress union

San Francisco Chronicle
George Raine, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 8, 2005

The union representing workers at 14 San Francisco hotels won't formally reject the employers' most recent offer until they resume talks today, but the response has already been telegraphed.

"To say our people were unimpressed is an incredible understatement,'' Mike Casey, the president of Local 2 of the hotel workers union, said Tuesday.

On May 31 -- after more than 100 days with no negotiations -- the two sides met, and the hotels presented a contract proposal that would lower workers' co-payments for doctor's office visits and emergency room visits, compared with a previous offer.

The employers said the offer was made "in an effort to reach a settlement that provides hotel employees with a secure, long-term contract.''

The revised payment plan for office and ER visits is $10 and $20 respectively, compared with payments of $15 and $75 in the earlier proposal. Casey characterized the latest offer as an insignificant movement in negotiations.

One of the major issues dividing the two sides, which have been at odds over a new contract since August, is health care eligibility.

Currently, workers at union hotels need to work only two shifts a week in three out of four weeks to qualify for full health benefits. The employers want to increase the number of shifts to five, arguing that the change would be minimal.

Casey of Local 2 warned that the requirement would eliminate health benefits for as many as 1,000 people, who are banquet servers and people who are hired from a hiring hall, called extras.

Casey said he intends today to bring up language issues, a labor term referring to matters that do not affect the employers' bottom line. These include diversity in the workplace, uniforms and laundry expenses, which are still unresolved.

Steve Trent, a spokesman for the employers, said, "We are happy to be back at the table, and we look forward to the union's counterproposal. We hope the union's position will be a meaningful step toward reaching a fair and equitable contract for our employees.''

The 14 major hotels are represented by a bargaining organization that negotiates labor contracts that influence hotel workers' contracts throughout the city.

The member hotels include the Argent, Crowne Plaza, Fairmont, Four Seasons, Grand Hyatt, Hilton, Holiday Inn Civic Center, Holiday Inn Express & Suites at Fisherman's Wharf, Holiday Inn at Fisherman's Wharf, Palace, Hyatt Regency, Mark Hopkins, Omni and St. Francis.

E-mail George Raine at graine@sfchronicle.com.

Page C - 2
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/06/08/BUG9UD52D31.DTL

©2005 San Francisco Chronicle
 
Union Strategy Taking Its Toll

Los Angeles Business Journal Online

By DAVID GREENBERG
Los Angeles Business Journal Staff
In the year-long game of poker between unionized hotel workers and owners of large hotels in Los Angeles, the owners appear to hold the weaker hand.

An aggressive boycott campaign has cost the hotels millions of dollars in lost business. Two of the nine hotels have dropped out of the Los Angeles Hotel Employer’s Council (both were sold; the new owner of the Hyatt Regency Los Angeles cut its own deal with the union and the St. Regis hotel will be converted to condominiums). And a third hotel manager is urging accession to Unite HERE Local 11’s demand for a contract that would expire in 2006, to line up with expiration dates in other large cities.

“Local 11 has outmaneuvered us,” said John Stoddard, general manager of the Wilshire Grand hotel. “What I’m saying is stop fighting them and give them the ’06 agreement.”

When the previous contract expired more than a year ago, there appeared little hope that Unite HERE Local 11 could prevail. The larger and deeper-pocketed grocery workers’ union had just lost a bruising battle with supermarket chains, and the contests had similar parallels.

Both unions represented lower-skill workers in industries where employers were aggressively seeking to cut costs. Both were at a disadvantage as a regional union fighting owners with nationwide, and in the case of the hotel owners, worldwide resources.

Knowing that it couldn’t afford to strike, the union launched a boycott of the hotels, even though a successful boycott was sure to cost workers in the form of lost hours. And it pressed on with a tactic of delaying negotiations, showing a willingness to work without a contract until 2006 if need be.

*The full story is available in the May 30 edition of the Los Angeles Business Journal.

© 2005 Los Angeles Business Journal Associates
 
Biltmore Strikes Deal With Union

Los Angeles Business Journal Online
By ANDY FIXMER
Los Angeles Business Journal Staff

In another blow to the local hotel coalition whose members have been boycotted for months, downtown’s Millennium Biltmore Hotel will no longer oppose the efforts of a union to line up a contract with cities across the country.

In return, the union will stop urging Biltmore clients to boycott the hotel.

In response to the deal, the Los Angeles Hotel Employers Council – a group of seven hotels collectively bargaining with the union – filed charges of unfair labor practices with the National Labor Relations Board.

The hotel owners, in a 4-3 vote, filed the charges claiming that the union was improperly negotiating with individual properties – something not allowed under collective bargaining agreements. Fred Muir, a consultant to the hotel employers council, wouldn’t disclose which member hotels voted against filing the charges.

“It’s through their coercion of individual members of the council that we believe violate National Labor Relations regulations,” Muir said. “We also accuse them of not bargaining collectively in good faith.”

David Koff, a research analyst for Unite HERE Local 11, defended the outside agreements with hotel owners saying they did not constitute an outside contract. “They are still entitled to freedom of speech,” Koff said. “They have agreed to advocate for and recommend to the members of the employers council that they should accept the … proposal the union has had on the table for quite some time.”

Ivan Lee, the Biltmore’s general manager, would neither confirm nor deny the deal with the union, expected to be formally announced at the end of today. “We don’t have anything to disclose at this stage,” he said.

The Biltmore’s decision underscores an on-going dismantling of what appeared to be a formidable alliance of hotel owners who were seeking concessions from their employees when the contract expired nearly two years ago.

Last month, the owner of the Wilshire Grand agreed to similar terms as the Biltmore. As members of the Los Angeles Hotel Employers Council neither hotel can legally cut separate deals with the union. However, the two owners have agreed to vote in the union’s favor.

Besides the Biltmore and Wilshire Grand, six hotels that never joined the employers council and instead bargained independently with the union have all reached deals expiring in 2006 – the date when contracts in large cities nationwide are set to be renegotiated.

Muir wouldn’t address whether the NLRB filing indicated the employers council is concerned the union has driven a wedge between owners.

A union-led boycott has also cut into the bottom lines of employer council hotels, despite also reducing the hours of the workers it represents. The union estimates the boycott has cost the hotels between $10 million and $13 million in canceled room nights, conventions, corporate meetings and banquets by 114 confirmed clients.

The employers council has offered the union a five year contract that would give all full-time employees a $1,000 signing bonus, a 22 percent raise over the life of the contract and free family health care.

© 2005 Los Angeles Business Journal Associates.
 
Judge Clears Way for Grocery Strike Suit

MSN Money - Associated Press News

LOS ANGELES (AP) - A federal judge ruled Wednesday that California authorities can proceed with an antitrust lawsuit against three grocery chains over a profit-sharing pact they forged during a prolonged labor strike-lockout.

Attorney General Bill Lockyer sued the three grocers -- Albertsons Inc., Kroger Co., which owns Ralphs, and Safeway Inc.'s Vons -- in February 2004, alleging the chains' deal to share costs during the strike violated antitrust laws and hurt consumers by discouraging competitive pricing.

The chains maintained federal labor laws governing collective bargaining shielded them from liability.

In his decision, U.S. District Court Judge George H. King concluded the potential anticompetitive effects of the grocers' mutual aid pact did not "follow naturally from the collective bargaining process," and was not protected from potential antitrust liability.

King made no determination on whether the grocers violated antitrust laws, but his ruling clears the way for the state to pursue its case.

"They can't hide behind immunity to shield their conduct," said Tom Dresslar, a spokesman for Lockyer. "We're confident that now that we've overcome this hurdle, we will be able to convince the court that this agreement violates federal law."

Messages left after hours to representatives for Ralphs, Albertsons and Safeway were not immediately returned Wednesday.

After union leaders ordered the strike against Safeway's Vons and Pavilions chains on Oct. 11, 2003, Albertsons and Ralphs responded by locking out their employees. In all, about 59,000 workers were idled at 859 stores.

About a month into the walkout, the United Food and Commercial Workers union withdrew picket lines at Ralphs stores. As a result of the profit-sharing agreement, Ralphs and sister chain Food 4 Less, which was not a target of the strike, paid Vons and Albertsons $146.2 million, according to court documents.

The strike lasted more than four months, cost store owners more than $2 billion by some estimates and resulted in the permanent loss of many customers.

© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

 
NHL and Union Agree to a Revenue-Linked Cap

Chris Foster and Helene Elliott
From Times Staff and Wire Reports

June 9, 2005

The NHL and NHL Players' Assn. have agreed to a salary cap system based on team-by-team revenue, sources familiar with the negotiations said, a major step toward ending their labor dispute.

Negotiators, who met Wednesday in New York, have carved out a plan that calls for a salary cap linked to each team's revenue — the NHL is pushing for a link at 54%. The projections for the first year of the collective bargaining agreement would put the cap at $34 million to $36 million with a $22 million to $24 million minimum.

The amount would cover all player costs, including medical coverage and bonuses, as well as salary. The plan will also have a dollar-for-dollar luxury tax that goes into effect at the midpoint between the cap's ceiling and floor, $29 million.

While other issues remain, a source said that a deal could be in place in two weeks.

Salary arbitration, qualifying offers and free agency could stall negotiations, as could the 24% across-the-board salary rollback offered by the union in December.

Chris Foster and Helene Elliott

Copyright 2005 Los Angeles Times
 
SACRAMENTO / Ballot OKd on use of public workers' union dues

San Francisco Chronicle
John Wildermuth, Chronicle Political Writer
Wednesday, June 8, 2005

Teachers, firefighters and other public workers would have to give written consent before their dues could be used for political purposes under an initiative that has qualified for a likely special election ballot.

"We need to protect public employees from the insult of having money taken from them and spent on causes they may violently disagree with,'' said Lewis Uhler, who sponsored the initiative.

Union officials argue that the measure is a Republican attempt to hamstring unions that have consistently supported Democratic candidates.

The union dues measure, along with another that would more than double the time a teacher would have to work before being granted a permanent job, got the OK late Monday from Secretary of State Bruce McPherson, who announced that they each had more than the 411,198 valid signatures needed to make the ballot.

Both measures will go on the next statewide ballot, now scheduled for next June. But Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is expected to call Monday for a special election, which would put the measures before voters on Nov. 8.

While the teacher tenure initiative is one of a package of measures being backed by Schwarzenegger, the fight over union dues is likely to be the nastiest -- and most expensive. In 1998, unions spent more than $17 million to defeat Proposition 226, which would have put similar restrictions on all unions, public and private, making it tougher to raise money for political purposes.

"This time we're focusing exclusively on public employee unions,'' Uhler said. "People are upset with their overreaching arrogance and even greed in collecting pay and benefits, with pensions no other taxpayer could enjoy.''

While Schwarzenegger has not endorsed the measure so far, his allies are pumping money into the anti-union effort. In the past week, the state Republican Party has put $200,000 into Uhler's campaign, while the Small Business Action Committee, run by former Schwarzenegger aide Joel Fox, has given $555,000.

Democrats and union leaders have pledged to fight all of Schwarzenegger's initiatives.

"For reasons I still don't understand, it seems the governor is going to call a special election on issues most people don't care about or don't know about,'' said Gale Kaufman, a veteran Democratic strategist who is heading the opposition to Schwarzenegger's initiative effort. "He is spending $80 million for an election on initiatives that will impact horribly on working men and women.''

An initiative that would require that parents be notified before their minor daughters receive abortions already is on the ballot.

E-mail John Wildermuth at jwildermuth@sfchronicle.com.

Page B - 3
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/08/BAGLHD54SK1.DTL

©2005 San Francisco Chronicle