[biztech-discussion] Re: Moving Forward #4

  • From: Al Weinrub <Allen.Weinrub@xxxxxxx>
  • To: biztech-discussion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2004 21:30:41 -0700


I want to thank Bruce for submitting a detailed explanation of the 
anti-offshoring campaign for us to take a look at and respond to. I 
haven't yet digested the strategy and plan he has layed out, but it 
begins the discussion I was calling for.

In this email I want to touch briefly on two points related to, but not 
addressed in Bruce's paper:

1. A very thought-provoking paper has recently been issued by the North 
American Alliance for Fair Employment (NAFFE) of which the NWU is a 
member. The paper is called "Outsource This?" and lays out a broad 
framework and strategy for taking up the offshoring issue. I think it 
well worth our reading. It can be found on the home page of  the NAFFE 
website, http://www.fairjobs.org/, by scrolling down to Outsourcing, the 
Jobs Deficit & Globalization. The paper raises questions about our 
overall strategy.

2. I want to respond briefly to Bruce's first paragraph, below, which 
refers to a discussion he and I had regarding a differentiation between 
the issues that appeal to our primary constituency and those aimed at 
the general public.  I think it is fair to characterize our difference 
as follows: Bruce feels we should appeal to our primary constitutency 
with the same arguments that we would use to appeal to the broader 
public--the threat to personal privacy argument and the government 
should not be funding jobs abroad argument.

My perspective, however, is that  the threatened professions are very 
concerned about the threats to their jobs, and this is a strong 
motivation to their being concerned about the offshoring issue. My 
experience talking to many co-workers confirms this. While our campaign 
targets specific legislation that would curtail some aspects of the free 
offshoring of jobs, I think the widespread exposure the issue has 
received is because of the direct impact offshoring has already had on 
so many jobs. In other words, the issues that motivate our primary 
constituency about offshoring are much less government policy and much 
more how at risk these people are.

 I would see our campaign as addressing our constituency's legitimate 
job concerns as a way of involving them in a campaign that can garner 
broad political support. I see the Frequently Stated Misconceptions 
(FSM) paper as a way of overcoming the bs that tends to discourage 
people from getting involved.


Bruce Hartford wrote:

>At 10:14 PM 6/26/04 -0700, Al Weinrub wrote:
>>Dear Folks,
>>I have prepared the following description of the anti-offshoring 
>>campaign we have begun working on. This preliminary campaign plan is to 
>>explain what we have been doing to the National Executive Committee, 
>>chapter chairpersons, and other NWU activists.
>Over-all, I think your draft looks fine. Though as you know I disagree with
>a hard differentiation between the issues that appeal to our core
>constituency and those aimed at the general public. As you know from our
>conversations I believe that the "general-public" arguments will have
>greater influence on our core constituents than the "my job at risk"
>approach you favor. No doubt this will worked out as the campaign evolves. 
>As I've worked on drafting the "no government-support" materials I found I
>could not write them without first shaping my thoughts around the campaign
>as a whole. So it turns out we've both been on the same wavelength. Below
>is a list of the materials I see the campaign needing. Attached (in
>virus-free text-only format) is a draft explanation of the campaign as a
>whole. While yours was aimed at explaining the campaign to the NEC, mine
>was aimed at explaining it to the membership. 
> --bruce

Other related posts: