----- Original Message ----- From: "David Brin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 9:35 PM Subject: Re: Brin: some thoughts and quotes.
> > --- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Is there any indication that their treatment of > > workers is unusual for > > retail? We do know that without Wal-marts, K-marts, > > Targets, etc., lower > > income people would have a much lower effective > > standard of living. I'm > > willing to change my mind if places like Abercrombie > > and Fitch having high > > prices only because their employees get such good > > benefits. > > I never cease to be amazed by supposedly educated > people who have no clue how important the US Labor > movement was. > > Not only did it play a huge role in the creation of a > middle class so huge that we got the "diamond shaped > society" (that the Bushies have vowed to destroy.) > But it also was THE MAJOR FORCE THAT DEMANDED A POLICY > OF VIGOROUSLY CONTAINING COMMUNISM, INSTEAD OF > RETREATING INTO ISOLATIONISM. > > If you had such things anywhere on your horizons, you > would be able to parse it simply. The chains that > have union contracts pay living wages with basic > benefits and decent conditions, lifting their workers > out of poverty in fair recompense for a hard day's > work. A decent minimum wage law and overtime > protection also help. That is a false statement. Kroeger's is union, and pays less than Randall's which is not. Retail, throughout much of the country, has never been unionized. Mom and Pop stores usually have not been unionized. Even in a state where there was not a Democratic party, but a Democratic Farmer Labor party, the corner store was not unionized. It was the shippers who were, and I'm am sorry I responded to Zimmy without remembering that he didn't include the ! in brin. I guess we need to just take it out instead of fix it, because its easy to miss. But, I've also got a complaint. I have read rants, being talked down to by someone who doesn't give the usual backing for claims I've come to expect from civil dialog, and then find I am told not to reply because he has read enough on the subject. Coming from where I grew up, and my pro-union family, I don't feel I need to be lectured on the values of unions. Other posts of mine, which he didn't read...which is fine...I'm certainly don't think my writing is on any must read list, discussed at length my views that the concentration of wealth is a risk to society. Its my position that the nation needs to work to ensure that lower income working families do well enough. I don't appreciate being told that I don't understand the need for unions, when I'm pro union. I'd be more than happy to discuss closed shop vs. open shop; the influence of right to work laws in Southern states on the fraction of unionized workers in the nation, whether changes in the minimum wage, goverment/corporate splits of the cost of health insurance for the working poor (Medicaid cuts off at a very low income), etc. I just don't like being told that I don't know enough to understand something I already believe in. I just don't think the proper response to a problem always to vent at the most convenient targets. As an aside, does anyone know if David is friends with many people who work retail? My relatives do, for goodness sakes. I know what they go through and feel for them. They don't work for big chains, and from what they tell me, its not the chains that are the problem. If people have information that shows that discount chains like Wal-Mart are the source of this problem, I'd be interested in seeing it. Heck, I want to know the truth. Sure, I always want to be right, but if I have to change my mind to be right, so be it. :-) The general rule of civil discourse that I've always followed is that one signs off an argument by either not responding, or responding with a "lets table this message, I'm busy." It is not a parting shot. I realize that David is special here, this is certainly not the Minette-L list, but I'd just like the rules for debating with David clarified. 1) Are we not to differ with him? 2) Are we supposed to always let him have the last word, because he is the name member of the list? 3) Do we need to accept without question any derogatory tones he uses with people he differs with? I realize that some folks have taken exception with my tone from time to time, but I have always felt they had the right to their opinion. Yea...I'd differ with them, but I always thought about it. I'd appreciate any and all help in this manner. If the rules are clear to me, I will follow them as best I can. I will make mistakes in reading headers from time to time, and expect to get yelled at for any and all mistakes. The pleasure I have taken in corresponding with a large number of people I consider friends on this list outweighs the discomfort of having to follow special rules. It would just help very much to know what they were. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
