The NEC voted to make the off-shoring campaign one of our top priorities. Jerry Colby, after consulting with Weinrub, Vossenas, Davis, Gradel, staff members, and others, decided to allocate 40 percent of a full-time organizer's time to work on off-shoring. I think even more resources would be devoted to the campaign, if a plan was developed to couple off-shoring with an effort to help attract new members and retain current ones. I too, don't think much of the national security argument. Instead I think we should attack any tax advantages given to companies that export job. Profits made outside the country should be taxed at the same or higher rates as those made here. Corporations that move their headquarters off-shore to escape taxation and regulation should be forced to move back. I also think pressure must be put on state and local governments to buy and hire locally. I think the best arguments are moral arguments. I think any worker who contributes his or her labor, talent, intelligence and energy into helping build a profitable enterprise earns a right to his or her job. The right is not a permanent or absolute right. But the worker earns a right to substantial advance warning and significant assistance during a period of transition and retraining. Workers who have been on the job and have made a contribution to the enterprise for many years have greater rights than someone who arrived on the scene a few months ago. People have a right to jobs that pay decent wages and benefits and workers should have equal and fair opportunities to secure meaningful work. We have the right to organize our governments and economic system to make this happen. In my mind, we should think of jobs like with think about granting logging rights on public lands. Lumber companies can cut trees in certain places in certain numbers over a period of time. But they must replant the trees and can't totally destroy the environment in the process. (Good laws and strong enforcement are needed to make this work.) We can't stop off-shoring but we can regulate it. If we attack off-shoring in these moral, pro-community, pro-human terms, we will be speaking for all workers. It doesn't matter if the workers we are talking about make the minimum wage or rake in $100,000 a year with benefits. The principle is the same and all workers can understand it. Of course some of us didn't worry about the exporting of jobs until it affected white collar or writing jobs. We will have to ask forgiveness from the clothing workers and punch press operators who we ignored for the past several decades. There are numerous ways to do penance and earn our way back on the "good guys" list. But, just because we were slow to wake up and get it right, is no reason to sit on the side lines now. Also, we must enter the battle to improve earning power and working conditions for workers, and writers, in developing countries. The moral arguments fall short if we are only concerned about our own self interest. I didn't mean to preach. But these are some of my thoughts. Tom Gradel -- in Chicago. -----Original Message----- From: biztech-discussion-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:biztech-discussion-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Bradley Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 11:56 AM To: biztech-discussion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [biztech-discussion] Re: Prioritization Frankly, I think we're not going to get much in the way of NWU resources. We might be better off tagging along with the CWA. They obviously have money and they're making a good splash. Maybe our contribution could be to bring new energy to the security issue. Regarding that issue, touting national security gives me the creeps, but protection of personal data seems to have gotten lots of play in the media and it touches lots of people. H1-B are prime, too, I think, esp. in our industry, where we rub shoulders with H1-B workers every day. = Mike Bradley SF