Christopher Smith wrote:
On Jan 30, 2005, at 5:47 PM, Aaron Sherber wrote:
Darcy, I think there's a difference between your right to *fight* for a job and your right to *have* that job. I agree that workers have the right to fight for their jobs, and *should* do so, and that there's nothing artificial about that fight. If the iceman's union says, "We know that there is now this newfangled technology that lets you have an electric icebox in your house that doesn't actually use any ice, but we'd like to restrict the manufacture of those devices in order to preserve the jobs of our members," they are absolutely entitled to make that request (or demand). But actually *limiting* refrigerator manufacture would be, I think, an artificial way of staying technological progress.
I'm not clear on a point of semantics – what is the difference in your mind between "restricting" and "limiting" refrigerator manufacture? Because I don't see a difference.
I believe the difference was between the desire of the union to try to limit the manufacture of refrigerators and the actual accomplishment of that desire. It's one thing for a union to fight something new, either through ads to try to get the public to stay away from something new, or through picketing the manufacturers, and it's another thing to actually go to court or to the legislature and make such production illegal.
One is an attempt via market forces while the other is an attempt through law, and that I believe was the distinction. At least that was the distinction I got when I read the message.
-- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
