On 30 Jan 2005, at 4:39 PM, Aaron Sherber wrote:
Yes. I don't dispute anyone's right to fight for their job, or to unionize to do so. My point, which I think I said before, is that no one has an absolute right to a job. In purely labor terms, a musician is no different from a welder or an ice delivery man. Certain changes in the market (economic conditions, technological advances, etc.) are likely going to result in some of those people losing their jobs. And while that's unfortunate to those people, it's not necessarily a good enough argument for artificially staying those changes.
Aaron, what did I just *say*?
Look at what you wrote:
"Certain changes in the market (economic conditions, technological advances, etc.) are likely going to result in some of those people losing their jobs."
"Likely going to result." Passive voice -- implies inevitability and obscures agency. As if no one was actually responsible for deciding to fire these workers...
And then:
"And while that's unfortunate to those people, it's not necessarily a good enough argument for *artificially* [emphasis mine] staying those changes."
It's no more "artificial" for workers to fight for their jobs than it is for corporations to try to eliminate jobs. For crissakes, the entire free market system is an "artificial" human construct.
Even as you say you "don't dispute anyone's right to fight for their job," you use loaded language like "artificially staying [...] changes" to describe those efforts.
Again, it doesn't matter if you're a musician, a lighting tech, a secretary, a nurse, or a worker at Wal-Mart. You have an absolute right -- I would even say a responsibility -- to fight for what's best for you. There's nothing "artificial" about it.
- Darcy ----- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
