Arthur B. Shostak
Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA 19104
...Organized Labor, down now to only 13 percent of the American work force from 35 percent in the 1950s, confronts at least three major threats to its existence: The first, its loss of jobs sent overseas, is obvious. The second, a recent rise in well-being of certain members, poses an ironic risk. And the third, confusion about using computer power, while a threat least well-recognized in and outside of Labor, is arguably the most critical hazard of all....
It is an article by labor about labor. I think it is well done. One of the 'myths' circulating in the Right Wing Media today is how President Obama wants to slash technology to increase job growth. I think they said, the President wants to take away automation to increase the cost of making stuff, but, employing more people.
The Right Wing Media really plays people for fools. There is no other way to look at it. Unions, in the year 2011, represent highly technical fields such as nursing, teaching, engineering (both public and private), machinists, aerospace workers, Longshore workers, letter carriers, theater and stage workers, newspaper workers, glazers. iron workers, flight dispaters, meterologists and operation specialists, Flight Attendants, Pilots, food and commercail workers, university professors and staff, hospital workers, electrical workers, elevator workers, dry wall tapers, plumbers, linoleum and soft tile workers, communication workers, carpeters, brick layers, construction and building trade workers, boiler workers, heat and frost and insulation workers, Municipal, State and Federal employees, steel workers, actors and actresses, writers and film industry workers, sheetmetal workers, the maritime industry workers, seafarers, sailors, painters, police officers, paramedics and plasterers and cement masons.
Tell me one job there that does NOT use technology in the year 2011. How is it that President Obama is anti-technology in order to 'dummy down' the nation to create more jobs? It is hideous.
The article noted in this entry examines THE REAL CAUSES of union membership decline. I found it to be a welcome understanding to a greater dynamic that creates 'disinterest' in workers and their ability to secure good pay and benefits. I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I did.
I especially like this paragraph:
...Many well-off workers may think unionization unnecessary, at least as long as they continue to "feel" financially comfortable (a social-psychological effect known since the 1960s as the "embourgeoisification of the proletariat"). This can take the form of workers - newly indifferent to Labor - employing what is known to academics as the Exit Strategy (quitting one job to take a better one) in preference to choosing the Voice Strategy ( sticking with the union and fighting for gains). Especially in a culture like that of America, where class membership is lightly and unevenly held, where it is somehow odd to seeing oneself as a beneficiary of collective representation, unions have long been buffeted by this sort of conscious drift away from collective bonds toward "Me, first!" individualism....
Ah, reasons beyond what one might think.
Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA 19104
...Organized Labor, down now to only 13 percent of the American work force from 35 percent in the 1950s, confronts at least three major threats to its existence: The first, its loss of jobs sent overseas, is obvious. The second, a recent rise in well-being of certain members, poses an ironic risk. And the third, confusion about using computer power, while a threat least well-recognized in and outside of Labor, is arguably the most critical hazard of all....
It is an article by labor about labor. I think it is well done. One of the 'myths' circulating in the Right Wing Media today is how President Obama wants to slash technology to increase job growth. I think they said, the President wants to take away automation to increase the cost of making stuff, but, employing more people.
The Right Wing Media really plays people for fools. There is no other way to look at it. Unions, in the year 2011, represent highly technical fields such as nursing, teaching, engineering (both public and private), machinists, aerospace workers, Longshore workers, letter carriers, theater and stage workers, newspaper workers, glazers. iron workers, flight dispaters, meterologists and operation specialists, Flight Attendants, Pilots, food and commercail workers, university professors and staff, hospital workers, electrical workers, elevator workers, dry wall tapers, plumbers, linoleum and soft tile workers, communication workers, carpeters, brick layers, construction and building trade workers, boiler workers, heat and frost and insulation workers, Municipal, State and Federal employees, steel workers, actors and actresses, writers and film industry workers, sheetmetal workers, the maritime industry workers, seafarers, sailors, painters, police officers, paramedics and plasterers and cement masons.
Tell me one job there that does NOT use technology in the year 2011. How is it that President Obama is anti-technology in order to 'dummy down' the nation to create more jobs? It is hideous.
The article noted in this entry examines THE REAL CAUSES of union membership decline. I found it to be a welcome understanding to a greater dynamic that creates 'disinterest' in workers and their ability to secure good pay and benefits. I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I did.
I especially like this paragraph:
...Many well-off workers may think unionization unnecessary, at least as long as they continue to "feel" financially comfortable (a social-psychological effect known since the 1960s as the "embourgeoisification of the proletariat"). This can take the form of workers - newly indifferent to Labor - employing what is known to academics as the Exit Strategy (quitting one job to take a better one) in preference to choosing the Voice Strategy ( sticking with the union and fighting for gains). Especially in a culture like that of America, where class membership is lightly and unevenly held, where it is somehow odd to seeing oneself as a beneficiary of collective representation, unions have long been buffeted by this sort of conscious drift away from collective bonds toward "Me, first!" individualism....
Ah, reasons beyond what one might think.
