I clearly said that "[g]etting fired for industrial and other political actions is a real possibility, and union and other organizers should frankly discuss it, presenting people with available data" (<http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20050516/010324.html>), so workers could weigh costs and benefits. What I object to is exaggerating the possibility of getting fired for union organizing and the like -- striking fear more than facts warrant* is the boss's job, not our job. I don't see why you can find a problem with that.
* Companies that threaten to partially or fully close the plant if the union wins the election: 51%
Companies that actually close their plants after a successful union election: 1%
Source: "Employer Interference -- By the Numbers," <http://www.aflcio.org/aboutunions/joinunions/howjoin/employerinterference.cfm>
>It's just outright hostility to workers by people who lack a klew X
>4 about the life of anyone outside the cloistered lifestyle enclaves
>that litter the Leftosphere like pilodinal cysts on Rush Limbaugh's
>arse.
Workers need facts, not pity.
It's disservice to workers to tell them that they cannot organize a union, engage in an industrial action, and the like because doing so will almost always get them fired, and getting fired is worse than anything else that can happen to them. Taking action in your own interest has its risks and consequences, but not doing so has its risks and consequences, too, some of which include deaths and physical injuries: "Each year, nearly 6,000 people are killed at work and another 50,000 die from occupational diseases, according to government statistics. Millions more are injured on the job" ("Workers Memorial Day Set to Honor 56,000 Killed and Millions Injured at Work Each Year," <http://www.aflcio.org/yourjobeconomy/safety/ns04262005.cfm>).
>Chuck and DSR are examples of the fact that it ain't so easy to find
>a job, as are several other people on this list, at least according
>to the last snit poll.
I don't believe that it's easy to find a job, especially a job that matches your qualification and experience and comes with the same or better wages and benefits, but that's the case whether you get fired for union and other political actions, or you get fired because the boss simply doesn't need you anymore, or your boss's company goes bankrupt, or you are really unhappy with your job and simply quit in a hurry without lining up the next job rather than stay put and try to change your workplace for better.
>p.s., stats from an economic downturn are unreliable. Dig a little
>deeper into the stats on why people lose their jobs.
Do you actually believe that most workers who get fired do so because of their union and other political activities during an economic upturn? Anyhow, here's the data from 1991-2001:
<blockquote>Defining Job Displacement
In general, this report uses the definition of job displacement developed by the BLS. For a worker to qualify as a "displaced worker," he or she must have:
-- lost a job during the three calendar years preceding their interview in the DWS (which took place every other year in February, except in 2002, when the survey was fielded in January); -- lost the job due to "plant closing"; "insufficient demand"; or "shift abolished" (and never for cause); -- not expected to be recalled to the job within six months of when laid off; and -- held the lost job for at least three years.
Broader definitions are also possible. For example, some analysts have counted as displaced those workers who lost their jobs for additional reasons, such as the failure of a self-operated business or the end of seasonal employment; or relaxed the requirement that workers have three or more years of tenure on the lost job; or included workers who expected to be recalled within six months of their job loss6. While each of these broader definitions has its merits, this report adheres to the strict definition employed by the BLS, in part, because the BLS definition probably best captures the experience of "downsizing," "outsourcing," and other terms used in the public discussion of job displacement, important features of which include the emphasis on the permanent loss of relatively long-term, steady, jobs.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Reasons for displacement
Using the BLS definition, the most important reason for job displacement -- about 46 percent of the total -- is plant closing (see Table 4, column 1). By this strict definition, "position abolished" accounted for about 30 percent of displacement and "insufficient work" for the remainder (about 25 percent).
Following the broader definition, which allows for additional reasons for job loss, and places no restrictions on tenure at the lost job or expectations about being recalled to the same job, the most important reason for job displacement is the "other reason" category 12 (29 percent), followed by "insufficient work" (25 percent) and "plant closing" (25 percent). "Position abolished" also accounts for a significant portion of total displacement (16 percent). Only a relatively small portion of job displacement, broadly defined, was a result of the loss of a seasonal job (4 percent) or the failure of a self-employed business (2 percent).
TABLE 4 Reason for job displacement, 1991-2001 (Percent of all displaced workers)
BLS definition Broad definition
Plant closing 46.0 24.9 Insufficient work 24.5 25.3 Position abolished 29.5 15.7 Seasonal job ended -- 3.9 Self-employment failed -- 1.6 Other -- 28.6 Total 100.0 100.0
Notes: Analysis of CEPR extract of Current Population Survey Displaced Workers Survey, pooled 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, and 2002.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12. [Henry S.] Farber (["Has the Rate of Job Loss Increased in the 1990s?" Proceedings of the Fiftieth Annual Winter Meeting of the Industrial Relations Research Association, vol. 1, pp. 89-97.]1998, ["Job Loss in the United States, 1981-2001," Industrial Relations Section, Princeton University, Working Paper No. 471.] 2003) include a careful analysis of the underlying causes of displacement for "other reasons," based on special debriefings of a subsample of participants in the DWS. Farber (2003) concludes that about one-fourth of those citing "other reasons" for job loss had, in fact, lost their job involuntarily.
(John Schmitt, "Job Displacement over the Business Cycle, 1991-2001," <http://www.cepr.net/publications/displaced_workers.htm>, June 2004)</blockquote>
Reasons for displacement 1991-2001 based on the BLS definition are about the same as those in 2001-3: "Of those long-tenured workers displaced during the January 2001 through December 2003 period, 43 percent lost or left their jobs due to plant or company closings or moves, 29 percent reported that their position or shift was abolished, and 28 percent cited insufficient work as the reason for being displaced. (See table 2.) The proportion reporting insufficient work was up slightly from the prior survey, and the share citing plant or company closings or moves was down" ("Worker Displacement, 2001-03," <http://www.bls.gov/news.release/disp.nr0.htm>, 30 Jul. 2004).
A large majority of workers lose jobs due to lack of political action, not because of it. -- Yoshie
* Critical Montages: <http://montages.blogspot.com/> * Monthly Review: <http://monthlyreview.org/> * Greens for Nader: <http://greensfornader.net/> * Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/> * Calendars of Events in Columbus: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html>, <http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/> * Student International Forum: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/> * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio> * Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>