On 30 Jan 2005, at 5:47 PM, Aaron Sherber wrote:
Darcy, I think there's a difference between your right to *fight* for a job and your right to *have* that job. I agree that workers have the right to fight for their jobs, and *should* do so, and that there's nothing artificial about that fight. If the iceman's union says, "We know that there is now this newfangled technology that lets you have an electric icebox in your house that doesn't actually use any ice, but we'd like to restrict the manufacture of those devices in order to preserve the jobs of our members," they are absolutely entitled to make that request (or demand). But actually *limiting* refrigerator manufacture would be, I think, an artificial way of staying technological progress.
I hope that makes my position clearer.
Well, what you are effectively saying here is that you support the workers' right to fight to preserve their jobs -- provided they doesn't actually succeed.
Your ice-hauler example is also loaded and misleading. The American Federation of Musicians is not petitioning the US government to ban the sale and manufacture of the Virtual Orchestra Machine. What they are doing is using their collective bargaining power to ensure that none of their members play in shows that use the machine.
The manufactures of the VOM are trying to create demand for their product by promoting it as a way for producers to save costs by cutting down on the number of musicians they need to hire. The musicians are trying to limit the demand for this product by boycotting shows where it is used, and refusing to allow their members to perform alongside it. There's nothing "artificial" about either position.
- Darcy ----- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
