> At 11:52 PM 5/18/2005, Chuck0 wrote:
>
>> Why is not am option for most workers? How about all of those workers
>> who are fed up with their jobs and understand they can get another job
>> if they get fired for organizing?
> you're long-term unemployed? and you're asking this? Or, are you saying
> you don't have to be long-term unemployed? it's your choice? i hadn't
> gotten that impression (re: the latter).
Let's just say that I've managed to get by using a variety of resources. I've been unable to find work in either computer work or the library world. I have an excellent resume, I've had lots of interviews, but it's been a tough market. I've also gone through periods--like all unemployed people--where I simply gave up on looking. I'm coming out of one of those periods right now, although I've been sending out a few resumes in recent months.
But my point is that workers have to take some risks in order to win something better. This is something the mainstream labor movement has forgotten. It has played it safe for a half century, working within the system and ended up with very little. You would think that labor would ask workers to take a few more risks, after all, most of them are more privileged than workers around the world.
Direct action gets the goods. ;-)
Chuck IWW