You're welcome Ingrid. Not a semiologist--by a stretch. Though, I do try at times so I'm glad to be perceived as one since I'm usually perceived as an awful empiricist positivist peeeuuuh sociologist. Or somesuch.
> but I think you're full of
>crap,
Yeah. Sometimes. So? Gave you a reason to post now, ey? It's a tough job but somebody *has* to do it.
>especially in your little parenthetical there.
Just what is
>the "right" look that these most viciously
sneaking of
>capitalists employ?
Long hair in most places, will do. Though, if you'll care to observe for a moment (and I did say that I'd visited several of these outlets in my journies, that a certain kind of leftist look--maybe non traditional look-- is cultivated and sought after. Try being a 55 yr old former facilities manager w/ a MONY who wears Brooks Bros suits and see how far you get. Or try being someone with no college degree, but possessing a love of books and reading and able to demonstrate that knowledge and then wear acid washed jeans and hair styled with aqua net to the interview and see how far you get. You can be as well read, courteous etc as you like but the fact is the Borders and B&N have more applicants than most retail outlets. Last I knew they had an avg of 150 apps for each managerial opening in Syracuse, a figure that is significantly in higher in other urban areas. In that case, it is highly likely that there is a significant gap between one's superficial qualifications gleaned from an interview or two and why one gets hired. Your brother is surely qualified but so are most of the rest of the folks who apply. At this point, with the labor market sufficiently competitive, people get hired for many other reasons than mere skills which you can't glean from an interview and a job app anyway. As anyone who studies employment/hiring practices will tell you, few people in these sorts of jobs are hired on the basis of skills. They're hired because they "fit" they "click" they "feel right" whatever. (see Robert Jackall; sociology of the economy lit)
You can remain unconvinced. I say these things 'cause I know these things from acquaintances who work in management at Borders. The point is that there is no single aesthetic but a range of 'left leaning looks' just as there are in any sphere of US society. I'm sure your brother fits in quite nicely
My dear brother, for instance, works
>at the Borders in Cincinnati, a very conservative
market that
>has very little need to appeal to our
"politically left leaning
>sympathies," and he has had very little trouble
either being hired
>or being well treated by the standards of that
outlet, in spite
>of the fact that he weighs 340 lbs, has longish
unruly hair and
>facial growth that can only charitably be
described as an
>anti-aesthetic. He was hired and has been given
a substantial
>amount of leeway (of course at a low wage) for
the simple reason
>that he's extremely personable, well-read,
charming, etc., such that
>the occasional uptight suburban customer who
takes displeasure
>at his visage is overruled by the other customers
who clearly
>appreciate his presence.
EXACTLY.
Nothing like reading something into a post that wasn't there in the first place.
Of course, I wouldn't expect to convince you or anything anyway. Just my two cents. I think the rest of my post was sufficient enough to make a good case against Carrol's retort.
>My point, and it's a small one, is (1) that you
have
>done nothing to prove to me that Borders/B&N et
>al are any more sneaking/vicious than any other
business
>enterprise, and
did I say this in my post? No. So, on an internal critique of my claims, I assign a grade of F.
(2) that Carroll is right on target regarding
>this notion of boycotts. If individual Borders
stores are
>being specifically boycotted for their
union-busting activities,
>then I'm sure that anyone on this list would
agree that by
>all means, go ahead and boycott! But if you're
>just boycotting Borders in general because you
think
>they've insidiously tapped into our left-leaning
psyches,
>then, once again, I think you're full of crap.
Did I say this? No. I asked why some boycotts have been supported and relatively successful and others not. As well as a slew of other questions relating to the historical study of workers movements (which included boycotts), some of which have been privileged because they were based largely in WHITE, MALE occupations. I'll let everyone guess at the implications I'm suggesting.
SnitgrrRl