> Mike Larkin writes:
>
> "I'm not sure how effective that would be. In corporate America, where I
> toil, cubicle people view unproductive fellow workers as a big problem, and
> constantly say unions would make that problem worse. Whatever you think of
> that attitude, it's widespread, and needs to be engaged. Your slogan would
> probably be interpreted as coddling slackers."
>
> ...but what do they think about upper management...if we're going to talk
> about useless, destructive slackers?
They're probably caught between reflexive, drooling leader worship and passive- aggressive hostility. Why do you ask?
The real hostility that you see in the workplace is reserved for peers who violate the social contract - ones who shirk work or never attempt it, ones who don't do their share, ones who play cards in their manager's office ... not that I'm bitter or anything.
This could be an interesting segue into evolutionary biology and that all human societies (and all higher primates, in fact) appear to have an instinctive desire to punish cheats and freeloaders - even when to do so exceeds the potential gain from doing so. However, I will not take it that way. Someone else can go after that. :-)
That said, Doug's concept of protecting the worker, not the work, isn't a bad idea, although it would have to be coupled with social reform which reduces the effects of economic inequality, if not the degree of economic inequality. Changing jobs and professions is a big enough hurdle in and of itself; coupled with huge gaps in purchasing power, health coverage, benefits, most of all status, it's almost insurmountable.
Regards,
Marco