Re: the Perfect Gift

[Don Smith <dasmith@rotse2.physics.lsa.umich.edu>]

Kelvin wrote:
> Don! Great to hear from you again. You're so stinkin' smart.

[blush] You're too kind.  It was nice to see your name pop up on the web
archive, too (that's how I read the list -- I just pop into the web 
archive from time to time and try to catch up).

> As for unions. I don't deny that they have brought about many much needed
> changes. But I believe they have almost outlived their usefulness. Or at
> least developed into so much that is not good that the good gets buried.

I certainly cannot deny that there have been abuses of power (Hoffa, anyone?).
I also never intended to imply that unions are incorruptable, perfect, or had
no negative sides to them.  I, myself, have never been a part of a union (there
really isn't an "Astrophysicists' union" or "professors' union", and MIT didn't
have a grad student union like Michigan does), so I cannot speak from
first-hand experience.  It just seems to me from what I've read and observed
that without unions, employers have too much power.  I was just reading in
Molly Irvin's book _Bushwhacked_ about non-unionized catfish factory workers in
Mississipi who aren't allowed bathroom breaks, because if one person takes a
break, all the people "downstream" have to stop, as the fish are not
progressing down the assembly line.  And when the womens' hands get too gnarled
and arthritic to gut twelve thousand catfish an hour (at the ripe old age of
around thirty), it's sayonara and thanks for all your work.  Have fun finding
another job with wrecked hands.  Before unions, workers were not people, they
were tools or worse.  Chinese people working on the railroads in the 19th
century were *shot* for trying to quit the horrendous working conditions!  They
weren't *allowed* to try to find a better situation.  And where one worker
would be quite helpless to protest ill treatment, all of them together have
bargaining power.

> And as far as Borders goes, I was just trying to say that most folks who work
> there are pretty intelligent people who choose to work there and probably
> would have other options if they looked for them. It is really not the same
> situation as someone working at McDonalds or doing housekeeping at Motel 6.

True, Borders is a *book*store.  They *need* to have intelligent and well-read
employees who can assist customers in finding the right books.  Those sorts of
people generally (perhaps inappropriately) feel entitled to better treatment.
Of course, ideally even the Motel 6 housekeeper would be treated with dignity
and respect.

> For years I complained about my job without even trying to step out and do
> something different. You're right. Not everyone is in a position to do
> so. But I believe before we have the right to continue to bitch and moan
> about our situation, we should at least see if we do have options.

I agree, bitching and moaning is not productive.  But I don't see striking
as bitching and moaning.  I see it as taking active steps to try to improve
the current working situation for everyone there.  If that fails, sure,
the next step is to find something else, but shouldn't one at least try
to fix the current situation before taking off?  Of course, that depends
on the situation; I shouldn't generalize.  My point is just that there's
a difference between sticking with a lousy job, complaining about it,
but *doing* nothing, and agitating for change and even going on strike
to try to improve the situation.

There's some interesting information, including perspectives of the
strikers, at http://www.bordersunion.org/

Oh, and I've heard through the grapevine that Liesel is fine, just
insanely busy.

See ya!
-- 
Don Smith                           Robotic Optical Transient Search Experiment
donaldas@umich.edu                                http://www.rotse.net/dasmith/

---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/