an in-between move

Cool kids read The Bellman.


Don't read this blog!

I mean, thanks for dropping by my little corner of the blogospheric backwaters, but the blog you should be reading is The Bellman. The stuff I post there is much, much less likely to be imbued with dormitive powers.


[German, from zwischen, intermediate + zug, move

Literally an "in-between move". A move in a tactical sequence is called a zwischenzug* when it does not relate directly to the tactical motif in operation. |source|

image copyright TWIC

From this position, black played a zwischenzug: 19…d5
(Linares 2002, 1-0)


about your blogger

David Rowland studies philosophy at the University of Illinois - Urbana / Champaign, where he's an active member of the Graduate Employees Organization. He used to play a lot of chess, but wasn't all that good. He has a blog. And email.



Will it ever end?
The Department of Education is a propaganda minist...
Gonna eat me a plate of biscuits and beans
The folly of fools is deceit
Slimy cheapish deafening toadeater
I want to move to Vermont
Use Your Mind Constructively
Social Hygene Posters
167 is a bigger number than 159
We ought to codify that


error log

January 2004  
February 2004  
March 2004  
April 2004  
May 2004  
June 2004  
July 2004  
August 2004  
September 2004  
October 2004  
November 2004  
December 2004  
January 2005  
February 2005  
March 2005  
April 2005  
May 2005  
June 2005  
July 2005  
August 2005  
September 2005  
October 2005  
November 2005  
December 2005  


$zwichenzug$ sell-out zone





Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under
a Creative Commons License.

Union Label

Direct Action
Gets the Goods!


some folks I know

Mark Dilley
a daily dose of architecture
Safety Neal
January Girl
mimi jingcha
Hop, Skip, Jump
ambivalent imbroglio
Brooke & Lian


some blogs I read

strip mining for whimsy
It's Matt's World
School of Blog
Fall of the State
Dru Blood
Echidne of the Snakes
Colossal Waste of Bandwidth
Running from the Thought Police
Bionic Octopus


some philosoblogs

Fake Barn Country
Freiheit und Wissen


some labor blogs

Confined Space
Working Life
Dispatches From the Trenches
Labor Blog
Eric Lee


some A-list blogs

This Modern World
Matthew Yglesias
Andrew Sullivan
Political Animal
The Volokh Conspiracy


some other links

Rule 33
This Week in Chess
War Nerd
National Priorities Project
Bible Gateway
Internet Archive
A Weekly Dose of Architecture
Orsinal: Morning Sunshine
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Safety Sign Builder
Get Your War On


some philosoblogging

Six views about reasons
Seidman on reflection and rationality
And another thing
Tiffany's argument for strong internalism
Internalism v. Externalism
What do internalists believe anyway?
Rationalism and internalism
The experimental method in philosophy
Advertising to children
On moral skepticism
A linguistic argument
More on Williams
Williams on reasons
General and particular
Normativity and morality
Political intuitions
What it is, what it was, and what it shall be
Objectivity and morality
Thinking revolution
Abortion and coercion
Moore on torture
On the phenomenology of deliberation
Even more Deliberation Day
more Deliberation Day
Deliberation Day run-down
He made a porch for the throne where he might judge, cont.
He made a porch for the throne where he might judge
Every shepherd is an abomination
Droppin' H-bombs
ad hominem

Thursday, February 26, 2004


Details emerging

Calpundit tracked down some details on the agreement. From the LA Times:

The stores accomplished such goals as installing a two-tier system of employee compensation, under which new hires would earn considerably less in wages and benefits than current employees, the sources said.

There also would be a cap on how much the supermarkets contribute to their employees' healthcare coverage, a change the stores aggressively sought in order to combat rising healthcare costs, they said. Until now, all of the workers' healthcare costs have been borne by the stores.

The union, meanwhile, persuaded the grocery stores to contribute more money into the workers' health care reserve fund, the sources said. The upshot of that move, they said, is that veteran grocery employees should not have to contribute to their healthcare coverage in the first two years of the contract, although they might have to pay some amount during the third year. [link]

Quick and dirty analysis: In the end, asking the strikers to stay on the line for the benefit of workers who hadn't yet been hired was too much. The agreement has significant protections for current workers, but new hires will be firmly planted in the lower class.

There's a lesson here about solidarity. What we need is one big union.

Seriously. The only way that the workers on the line could have beaten back the supermarkets - and the only way they should be expected to take responsibility for doing it - is if they were part of a vibrant movement. If, for example, the Teamsters had continued to refuse to deliver goods, and had refused at every store, the supermarkets would have lost. But even then it's just the Teamsters and the UFCW against three multi-billion dollar corporations. Where were the rest of us?

I'm reminded of an organizing conversation I had about a month ago. I was talking to a first year teaching assistant from one of the science departments. She agreed that our health insurance wasn't very good and thought that it would be a very nice thing if our employer picked up at least part of the tab. But she also thought that it wouldn't be fair if we got coverage while so many working people didn't.

I think it would be great if we had a comprehensive national healthcare system. But I also think the only way to get there is by having strong unions that win major concessions from employers. Why? Because the only way to fund comprehensive national healthcare is by imposing a new tax on employers. And the only way employers are going to sit still for that is if the burden of the new tax is offset by savings in their employees' benefits packages.


What's being said around the blogosphere (I'll keep updating this as I find stuff):

As always, the Joe Hill Dispatch is the definitive site for labor news.

Calpundit argues that the diminishing power of unions is allowing corporations to roll back health coverage and that, ironically, this is likely to lead to increased popular support for national healthcare.

Pacific John at Gropinator echoes and amplifies Calpundit's point.

Update: There's quite a discussion thread going on over at Calpundit. The star, as far as I'm concerned is this post from a certain R.Porrofatto. He points out that in 2002 the compensation packages for the top 20 HMO executives amounted to: "not including stock options: $237,907,917! Add to that the stock options: $1,153,864,691! Yes, that is a billion dollars! Together you are looking at $1.75 billion that went to twenty people in that industry in 2002 alone!!!!!"

It's worth reading the whole post.

Update: Body and Soul weighs in with a thoughtful post that links the grocery strike to the ongoing debate about globalization.

Update: Nathan Newman argues that this strike was so damaging to the supermarkets that other corporations will think twice before trying to take health benefits from workers.

+ - + - + main + - + - +