--- Jim Mork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's been really interesting reading this debate on > labor. I have views, but I don't need to offer them > now. However, one thing: "labor" has for many, many
> decades refered to ORGANIZED labor. Labor is a noun > and verb with generic meanings, but in POLITICS, > no one has run as a "labor candidate" who didn't > have the support of organized workers. Not disagreeing, but there are more ways to organize than the hierarchical trade unions. This is especially evidenced by the fact that so many of the early labor activists that fought so hard and gave so much were anarchists. Seriously, how many DFL belong to the IWW (also known as the wobblies) http://www.iww.org/ To get on topic, does anyone know if Don or Olin are members of any labor organizations? Have they ever been? > So, it is semantic hanky-panky to use it in the > generic sense. I'm not using it in the generic sense (as in any person doing work is labor), but I am using it a broader sense - referring to organized labor. I also feel that organized labor (of whatever flavor) has a responsibility to assist labor that is being crushed hard enough that it can't get it's feet under it to organize. If the Unions don't get off their collective butts and start fighting a lot harder very soon for the rights of workers everywhere, they're going to be done because there aren't going to be any more labor jobs in America and those that are left will be designated "critical industries" so future Reagans and Bushes can stop any attempts at effective organization. This is probably off topic, but it is not semantic hanky panky. - phaedrus. __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
