I am very disappointed that of all the photos that you could have selected for your cover page ("Outsource This!," Aug. 29) that you chose the one with the gun.

We are trying to curb violence in the United States, and I think it's all of our responsibilities to highlight positive stories and photos that may influence youth today.

— Cheri Watson, Clinton

Cover missed the mark

I was disturbed and disappointed to see the photo you chose to feature on the front of the Pacific Northwest magazine section of The Times this morning ("Outsource This!," Aug. 29). With all the beautiful, inspiring and graceful photos accompanying your article "In Good Hands," and the interestingly futuristic photo illustrating "Helping Hands," your article on hand fitness, available to you, why would you choose to attract attention with a cover photo of a hand pointing a gun out a car window?

Your articles were not about crime, security threats, handgun safety, drive-by shootings or vigilantism, all of which came to mind when I looked at your disturbing cover image.

With all the ugly and frightening images in the media meant to manipulate readers into fear of the world about us, why did you find evoking ugliness and fear necessary in this context? Seeing the photo and the accompanying caption reading "Outsource This!," the first thing that came into my head were images of angry laid-off workers going berserk at their workplaces, which had no relevance to the rather inspiring articles inside.

How does such a photo relate to articles that provide ways to lessen chronic hand pain and help readers to appreciate the skill and artistry of professionals in our community who use their hands for good, rather than for the evil that appears to be depicted on the cover of the magazine?

I think the choice of photograph was ugly, unfortunate, sensationalistic and inappropriate.

— Laura Grey, Bellevue

A taxing situation

The Pacific Northwest magazine article "The Changing Face of Work" (July 25) is a real thought-provoker; looking forward to more.

Please consider the following: As you pointed out, the maximum income-tax rate has been decreasing since President Eisenhower. In those days executives were paid comparatively little (president of Boeing $200,000) because the high salary would be taken by income taxes (up to 97 percent one year).

As the tax rate decreased, the executives paid themselves more and more. The money reduced available funds for replacement and repair, reduced investment in equipment, research and development funds and even reduced dividends.

The execs became proficient at manipulating stock values (Bill Gates was and is the king) and thusly felt justified in even higher salaries and perks. Costs are reduced by shipping jobs overseas, thus more entitlement to higher takes. In short, the lowering of income taxes has ruined our corporations.

— Willard Gariss Sr., Port Townsend

More thoughts on work

I enjoyed your first installment of "The Changing Face of Work" (July 25). There was a lot of insight in it, delivered in a breezy and upbeat style. I was particularly struck by the observation that middle-class incomes stopped increasing in about 1973.

If one were to do some detailed research it would probably become apparent that it was about that time that business schools in the nation's universities began teaching the idea that employees were a liability and could be considered as replaceable and expendable, just like spare parts for a machine.

I believe they also began teaching that all businesses could be run on a similar model. This was the idea that one business was pretty much like another. You just had to manage capital, expenses, output and inventory while promoting sales, and any business could be easily understood and managed. In this model employee costs were considered a liability and all efforts had to be expended to minimize them. Little attention was paid to the concept of well-trained, competent, loyal, competitively paid employees as an asset.

During this time a new idea crept into corporate management. The idea was that you could bypass the board by appointing "insiders" and easily influenced outsiders to the board so that, instead of the board overseeing management and protecting the interest of the owners (shareholders), the corporation could be managed for the primary benefit of top-level management.

This idea grew slowly, but by the late '90s it was in full bloom and resulted in the Enron, Tyco, Adelphia and other scandals. That is the primary reason that top management's share of the pie has increased so dramatically to the detriment of shareholders and employees. Reforms are trying to do something about this, but it is hard to find enough qualified, honest and independent people to serve on boards of directors.

One step in the right direction would be to insist that all top management sign a contract that: 1) Ties his/her pay increases strictly to measurable improvements in the company's finances. 2) Gives him/her no special pension provisions over other management employees. 3) He/she agrees to leave without special compensation whenever the board finds his/her performance unsatisfactory or finds he/she has done anything unethical. I realize that nothing will stop a determined and clever thief from raiding a company's treasury, but the forgoing might slow some of them down.

You probably already knew these things, but I felt the need to mention them just in case they were below your radar.

— Jim Glendenning, Camano Island