Do you mean as a fair share of the profits as the baseball players did after so many died destitute while the sports events made huge profits from television or the problems with requiring people to do dangerous work for small salaries and when they were injured they were fired and the family were destitute. Mickey Mantle earned millions for the owner but left the team with very little from years of poor wages. It took a black man "Catfish Hunter" to know the value of himself and to refuse to play unless he was compensated based on what he earned for management. The white press called him uppity but he had a limited commodity that they wanted and so he broke the ceiling for sports workers. Management wasn't required to perform under such stress, only he was. They had not come up through a merit program worked in from childhood to be the very best in the world at what they did. But if he didn't perform they would simply fire him.
Then there are the minimum wage folks required to do dangerous work and ruin their lives. Here's an easy one that I saw in Warren, Ohio: "Go climb up on that pile of pipes and take inventory." I saw that. When the minimum wage employee refused because the pipes were unstable and he couldn't afford health insurance on their salary, he was fired. I've just heard so much horse dookey from the wealthy and their explainers and known so many union people as relatives and been one myself that I don't see how you can say such things Arthur being as serious a man and human being as you are. I think such explanations are beneath you. I would argue that business had a paternalistic bias before unions and certainly before they struck for higher wages. Would you disagree with that? REH From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Arthur Cordell Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 9:41 AM To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION'; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Futurework] Fwd: Blogpost: Ten Information and Communications Technology Issues That Should Be Discussed During the Canadian General Election (But Probably Won`t) It seems that business approved of those changes that would increase consumer purchasing power. The big fear post WW2 was that there might be a return to the Depression. There was the Full Employment Act along with the GI Bill, etc. which consciously or unconsciously bolstered the middle class. Business didn't react except when unions struck for higher wages. arthur From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ray Harrell Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 4:48 PM To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION'; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Futurework] Fwd: Blogpost: Ten Information and Communications Technology Issues That Should Be Discussed During the Canadian General Election (But Probably Won`t) Question: Did business really approve of the rise of the Middle Class after world war II. In the U.S. they lobbied for and got term limits that makes American Presidents perpetual amateurs at politics. No more FDRs. Is that because they really didn't like what happened with the Income Tax and the Middle Class and the close relationship between the upper and lower classes after the war? Removing the draft also removed the upper classes from training and even knowing the lower classes. I saw that in the 1960s. REH
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
