And what's really sad, from my observation of tech writers, is that they cling so hard to their identity as professionals--because they believe it will give them the bargaining power that engineers have. Because they believe that it is something valuable to cling to, as well. Dog forbid, they take a critical look at the way "professional" is defined under the Fair Labor Standards Act and ask, "WTF?" Dog forbid that they might just be cogs in the wheel and no different than line workers. I understand where they're coming from. It was amusing to sit their and argue with my boss, demanding overtime and all the while saying, "I'm not a professional!"
I'd love to take the archives of the Techwriters list and subject it to critical analysis someday. Their debates over long hours, unions, techwriter/engineers, contractors/employees, and how to get a job during the bust are excellent examples of how people are complicit in their own oppression. How they manufacture their consent, similar to the way Michael Burawoy examines the process on the factory floor, or Katherine Newman shows how downsized managers are so "steeped in the tenets of the managerial world view, they cannot avoid its condemnation of their character or conduct. They prosecute themselves on its behalf, turning criticism against themselves and against one another: victims blaming victims."
That reminds me: Doug, if you're reading, maybe you could give us a concrete example of what you mean by people getting pleasure from manufacturing their own consent. As you know, we're pretty closely aligned on the issue, but I'm still not sure if we're talking the same thing.
Kelley