"another" and "better" career alternative?.....Nope!

[John Jacobson]

Unions don't speak for their members anyway. They speak for the union
leaders.

"DPH" <kgclg15 at kg.hsanet.net> wrote in message
news:3A642E40.F8057299 at kg.hsanet.net...
> John Jacobson wrote:
>
> > "DPH" <kgclg15 at kg.hsanet.net> wrote in message
> > news:3A63C98F.B7679EDB at kg.hsanet.net...
> > > Lawson English wrote:
> > >
> > > That is just another reason for a union.  An IT Professional's union
could
> > make
> > > their position known, and exhort their membership to write and call
their
> > > congressmen, and suggest to their membership which congressmen would
> > better
> > > butter their bread (say that 3 times fast... ), etc.
> >
> >    They can do that now, without a union.
> >
>
> No, they can't.  It takes an organization for a group to be able to speak
with
> one voice.  People genearlly don't focus too well, with the same opinions,
> without some kind of group.
>
>
> > > Unions don't have to all be
> > > about strikes.  If U want to see an effective lobbying association,
join
> > the NRA
> > > and experience the barrage of information concerning gun rights that
it
> > sends its
> > > members.  I'm an NRA life member,  and could probably paper the walls
with
> > the
> > > correspondence I get from them in a year.  A union of, say, 4 million
IT
> > workers
> > > would be a formidable political force.
> >
> >    I don't think you can compare the NRA with a labor union. It doesn't
> > exist under the purview of the NLRB, or according to the idea that
> > management and workers are necessarily at opposite ends of the battle.
>
> It exists with the idea that the 2nd amendment has many enemies that must
be
> defeated politically.  It didn't start out like that, but has gone there
out of
> necessity.  Without the NRA, our guns would likely be in some government
> repository waiting to be dumped into the sea.  Its the same sort of
adversarial
> relationship.  I'm not sure how the NLRB is relavent to this, tho.
>
> DPH
>