Jim, does "all Federal procurement" mean that the government would purchase only products designed to the metric standard? In the current lingo, would it mean that non-metric design would have to be "substituted" by metric design? In what you envision, would the government refuse to buy 591 mL bottles of soft drink, thus influencing the bottlers to substitute the package size 600 mL? I'm just looking for an example of what you mean.
Thanks, Paul Paul Trusten, Reg. Pharmacist Vice President U.S. Metric Association, Inc. Midland, Texas USA www.metric.org +1(432)528-7724 [email protected] On Sep 25, 2011, at 12:42, Jim Elwell <[email protected]> wrote: > Folks: > > I am as pro-metric as anyone, but I cannot sign this petition. Since I have > not posted much in a few years, before explaining why, here is some info > about me: I founded a manufacturing company (QSI Corporation) in 1983, which > I converted to metric around 1992 (also when we joined the USMA). I sold the > company last November to a Swedish manufacturer (our website is now > www.BeijerElectronicsInc.com). > > In addition to converting a manufacturing company to metric, I helped a dozen > or so employees receive USMA CMS and CAMS certifications; I taught perhaps > 150 employees the basics of the metric system; QSI distributed tens of > thousands of metric rulers around the country (now available at the USMA home > page); I have been on the USMA board of advisers for years; I also worked > with numerous vendors helping them deal with our metric-only procurement > documents (drawings, etc.). We had to do that a lot in 1992, but essentially > all manufacturers of any size can handle metric today. > > (BTW, I would like to say that QSI being metric played a major role in a > Swedish company buying us, but that would not be the case. Beijer was > delighted that we were metric, as it eases the integration, but they bought > us for business reasons (i.e., our size, profitability, market penetration, > key business strengths, etc.). If we had NOT been metric, they would still > have bought us.) > > So, there are three primary reasons I cannot sign the petition: > > 1. I feel it is WAY too generic or un-actionable. "We petition the Obama > administration to complete the US transition to the modern metric system." > What specifically do you want them to do? Start issuing press releases with > metric units? (Utterly useless.) Require federal agencies to procure in > metric? (Extremely powerful, may need Congressional approval.) Require all > businesses to use metric only? (Guarantees constitutional challenges.) > > In my thinking, being so unspecific has two negatives: it does not suggest to > the Administration what direction they should consider, and leaves the door > open to them doing stupid or ineffective things. > > 2. I have real heartburn over the "allowing us to manufacture items we could > sell to the World." There is NOTHING stopping any company that wishes to from > manufacturing items to "sell to the World." My company did it, starting when > we were non-metric and had all of three employees (in late 1984). The > barriers to companies converting to metric have nothing to do with any > government barriers, and everything to do with individuals who run the > companies seeing any benefit in converting. If there are so many market > opportunities out there for companies that convert to metric, why haven't > they already done so? > > 3. I also have heartburn over "We could increase our exports if we > manufactured and sold using the metric system." Both the objection > immediately above, plus the use of "we." "We" do not manufacture anything -- > individual companies, run by individual persons, do. And it is those > individuals who are in the position to know whether or not converting to > metric would increase their export sales. The world is FAR too complex for > even the brightest Administration to know even a tiny fraction of the issues > that the millions of individual companies in the country have to deal with. > > My (prior) company exports to many countries (Canada, France, Japan, China, > Brazil, etc.). When we receive an RFQ (request for quote) from a foreign > country, it will frequently have certain metric requirements (e.g., cord has > to be 2 meters long), but I cannot think of it ever happening that being a > metric company gave us a significant advantage over other US non-metric > companies (the exception would be a company that refused to comply with > metric requirements (e.g., sells ONLY six-foot cords). > > In my opinion, the single most effective thing the Federal government could > do to promote metrication in the US is simply to require that all federal > procurement be done using the metric system. The Federal government is the > single largest purchaser of goods and services in the entire world, and the > millions of US businesses that scramble for government contracts would > rapidly metricate if they had to in order to sell to the Federal government. > > A petition along those lines is one I could support. > > Jim Elwell > > > > From: "Michael Payne" <[email protected]> > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2011 12:06:22 PM > Subject: [USMA:51140] Re: White House Petition > > As of Saturday 14:00 ET there were 80 signatures, there has to be 150 for the > general public to even see this apparently, so I'd like to ask everyone to > open an account and vote. We need to get this out to the American public. > > Thanks > > Mike Paye > On 24/09/2011, at 24:03 , Harry Wyeth wrote: > > > I signed it, but 41 signatures is pretty pathetic. Let's get on it! > > > > HARRY WYETH > > > > > > On 9/23/11 1515:15, Michael Payne wrote: > >> Please go to http://wh.gov/gw1 I need 150 signatures to keep it on the > >> list, 5000 to get the White House to pay attention. > >> > >> Mike Payne > > > > > > > -- > > > Beijer Electronics, Inc. > Jim Elwell | Technical Product Manager > [email protected] > 2212 South West Temple #50 | Salt Lake City | Utah | 84115 | USA | > 801-466-8770 | Fax 801-466-8792 > > >
