[biztech-discussion] Re: Prioritiization - Privacy
- From: Ann Thryft <athryft@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: biztech-discussion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 08:43:20 -0700
Last Thursday, I read news stories saying that SBC had struck a deal with the
striking CWA
workers (who were striking in part because of SBC's offshoring activities).
According to the
CWA website press release, "the settlement...calls for the rehiring of several
hundred workers
who had been laid off at SBC Southwest and SBC Midwest..." and "CWA and SBC
agreed to work
together to bring back tech support jobs from overseas when the current
outsourcing agreement
with Accenture expires." SBC-generated news, of course, does not even mention
the repatriation
of offshored jobs.
http://www.cwa-union.org/news/PressReleaseDisplay.asp?ID=428
This appears to be a historic first--or at least one of only a few such
victories--in the
recent history of offshoring in the U.S. Workers struck and won their jobs
back! Awesome!
Isn't this what we are trying to achieve? Get those offshored jobs back?
If so, isn't there something we can gain from this victory? Wouldn't it be more
productive to
start working in solidarity with CWA and other unions, either in supporting
them or trying to
learn from them?
Is there some reason no one responded to my previous post about this subject?
Is there
something I'm missing here? Please, let me know on- or off-list.
Thanks,
Ann Thryft
Rob Ramer wrote:
> Bruce & Al have both had very positive points on this issue.
> Bruce has touched on a critical issue regarding offshoring and national
> security, but given the fact that we are the NWU (with all the positives
> and negatives that embodies) I think it would be much easier to unite
> around the issue of privacy than national security. In essence the
> security issues are the same but we can unite people all across the
> spectrum on privacy (libertarians to liberals to lefties) whereas we will
> debate forever on national security.
>
> So I'd suggest we coalesce around Bruce's first two questions and develop
> a program to put the candidates on the defensive but focus it on
> privacy. (I've copied his suggested questions below.)
>
> Bruce's points about the ideology of globalization are valid, whether you
> go along or would want to debate the economics of World Bank style
> globalization. The point, as a 19th Century philosopher said, is not to
> understand the world but to change it. We need to come up with a specific
> plan to start some action on the issue of offshoring of writing jobs. So I
> suggest we go with Bruce's suggestion and at least come up with an
> educational campaign regarding the elections.
>
> Tactically, in addition to the internal problem of agreeing on working on
> any agenda which may align with the US intelligence military apparati
> (sp?), we should avoid the military issue because the government is so
> split on ideological grounds (free market supremacy vs. protecting US
> national interests (See how pathetic the GAO recommendations are in "
> 1. Defense Acquisitions: Knowledge of Software Suppliers Needed to Manage
> Risks. GAO-04-678, May 25.
> <http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-678>http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-678";)
>
> Rob Ramer
>
> Bruce Hartford's first two questions:
> (leaving off the third, defense/intelligence related issue)
> 1. Will you enact legislation requiring that all research,
> development, and administration of critical national infrastructure
> such as the power grid and banking/financial networks be done inside
> the United States?
>
> 2. Will you enact legislation prohibiting the dissemination of
> individual personal medical and financial data outside of the
> jurisdiction of American privacy and data protection laws?
>
> Once we settle on a set of questions, we mobilize our membership to
> present them to local candidates in their areas while the national
> leadership presents them to the presidential candidates. If possible,
> we get other organizations to join us in this effort We then use the
> web and methods to publicize where candidates stand.
Other related posts:
