KØHB wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote


So let me get this right..... the secret to happiness is to become an
MBA or a lawyer, even if you would rather be a technophile?



I don't think the "secret to happiness" has anything to do with how you earn
your living.

Happiness is a mode of travel, not a destination. I feel bad for thes
folk who make career and life decisions based on money.


For my "secrets to happiness", see http://tinyurl.com/22v9k lower left
corner of that page.

Cool stuff, Hans.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dave Head wrote in
:

On 29 Dec 2003 04:56:55 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

In article , Dave Head
writes:

It has to do
with the waning of union power, I think, and the mistake that "tech"
people including engineers make that they don't need a union. If
you're an employee, you need a union. Period. But the IT bunch won't
join one, and look what happened to them.

Dave,

I partly agree with you. A lot of the problem is waning union power.

But that doesn't mean everyone needs to be unionized. The mere
existence of strong unions benefits nonunion workers, too, because
often employers with nonunion shops will treat their workers better in
order to stave off unionization.

Yes, there is that good effect.

But as the percentage of labor that is unionized decreases, that effect
diminishes also.

We're going to be a 3rd world country if workers don't wake up. Very
rich. Very poor. Nobody else.

Dave Head

73 de Jim, N2EY




Oh, arise ye victims of opression, rise up ye workers from your chains,
Come rally, come rally, sing the Internationale

(Words of the Communist Internationale, a rare instance of a song that
refers reflexively to itself, must have been written by a Unix programmer)

On 30 Dec 2003 06:23:07 GMT, Alun wrote:

Dave Head wrote in
:

On 29 Dec 2003 04:56:55 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

In article , Dave Head
writes:

It has to do
with the waning of union power, I think, and the mistake that "tech"
people including engineers make that they don't need a union. If
you're an employee, you need a union. Period. But the IT bunch won't
join one, and look what happened to them.

Dave,

I partly agree with you. A lot of the problem is waning union power.

But that doesn't mean everyone needs to be unionized. The mere
existence of strong unions benefits nonunion workers, too, because
often employers with nonunion shops will treat their workers better in
order to stave off unionization.

Yes, there is that good effect.

But as the percentage of labor that is unionized decreases, that effect
diminishes also.

We're going to be a 3rd world country if workers don't wake up. Very
rich. Very poor. Nobody else.

Dave Head

73 de Jim, N2EY




Oh, arise ye victims of opression, rise up ye workers from your chains,
Come rally, come rally, sing the Internationale

(Words of the Communist Internationale, a rare instance of a song that
refers reflexively to itself, must have been written by a Unix programmer)

Well, we've had at least 1 request to end the thread, but I have to come back
this once to say that I believe we can have protection for workers via their
own actions, through unions, without going the communist route. I'm pretty
seriously anti-communist, but do believe that workers are progressively getting
abused and need to do something about it, themselves, since they are the only
ones that do or ever will care about their welfare.

Dave Head

Dave Head wrote in
:

On 30 Dec 2003 06:23:07 GMT, Alun wrote:

Dave Head wrote in
m:

On 29 Dec 2003 04:56:55 GMT, (N2EY) wrote:

In article , Dave Head
writes:

It has to do
with the waning of union power, I think, and the mistake that "tech"
people including engineers make that they don't need a union. If
you're an employee, you need a union. Period. But the IT bunch
won't join one, and look what happened to them.

Dave,

I partly agree with you. A lot of the problem is waning union power.

But that doesn't mean everyone needs to be unionized. The mere
existence of strong unions benefits nonunion workers, too, because
often employers with nonunion shops will treat their workers better
in order to stave off unionization.

Yes, there is that good effect.

But as the percentage of labor that is unionized decreases, that
effect diminishes also.

We're going to be a 3rd world country if workers don't wake up. Very
rich. Very poor. Nobody else.

Dave Head

73 de Jim, N2EY




Oh, arise ye victims of opression, rise up ye workers from your chains,
Come rally, come rally, sing the Internationale

(Words of the Communist Internationale, a rare instance of a song that
refers reflexively to itself, must have been written by a Unix
programmer)

Well, we've had at least 1 request to end the thread, but I have to
come back this once to say that I believe we can have protection for
workers via their own actions, through unions, without going the
communist route. I'm pretty seriously anti-communist, but do believe
that workers are progressively getting abused and need to do something
about it, themselves, since they are the only ones that do or ever will
care about their welfare.

Dave Head


I don't think there has ever been a true communist state, so it's
impossible to say what it would be like, or if it could even be done. The
Soviet Union was a highly stratified soceity, and didn't allow what we
would call unions.