I concur, and also support Tom's proposals. Saying that we should push the security argument because it might be accepted is a copout. It's like saying we should vote for W because he'll win. National security isn't our concern as a writers' organization or a union, and I'd bet that not many of us make it a high priority. Let's be honest and make honest arguments based on what we believe. Barbara On 5/15/04 5:34 PM, "Thomas J. Gradel" <thomasjgradel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> keyed in: > 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 > > > > >