this relationship. Green production is people-intensive and resource-saving, the very opposite of the industrial economy, and this has tremendous implications for the nature of work. I touched very briefly on the nature of work in service-based manufacturing, in deconstruction services, and in natural building. It tends to be innovative and higherskilled. The building trades, as craft unions, are relatively unique within the labour movement, strong in the more centralized sectors of a comparatively decentralized industry. Their basis of powertheir trade skills, deriving from their preindustrial status as itinerant craftsmenwas the source of their conservatism and individualism during the Fordist period: the stereotype of the redneck hardhat. Today, in a postindustrial context, their independence and decentralization can make, and has made, it easier for many building tradespeople to establish alternative enterprises. (A mass production worker, by contrast, has to influence an entire industry to make substantial changes.) Building trade workers can more easily become their own bosses and free themselves from industrial cog-labour status. If they couple this freedom with a greater concern for what theyre actually building, and greater attention to creating fulfillment in work itself, they take labour organization to a higher level of development. The decentralization of green productionparticularly in the built-environment also raises another dimension concerning work. That is, the relationship to the informal and household economies. The industrial economy has always been a divided one, with invisible realms (including domestic work and the natural world) subsidizing the officialcash spheres. But the rise of the postwar mass consumption economy meant a particular explosion of various forms of domestic production that have been officially considered