[ 29 September 2005: Message edited by: scooter ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by scooter:

Krusty the clown out of makeup?

Only a face a mother would love.

---

Ditto the pulp mill, as well.

Now I know it's a human thing for fathers to want the best for their kids, but I don't think it's particularly fair that union executives seem to tacitly condone the practice, which exacerbates the social tensions that unions were ostensibly formed to relieve, since once upon a time, unions had as a guiding philosophy that labor solidarity was so crucial that all people should form unions.

Nepotism is different, though. It implies that relatives where hired over more competent applicants, and that does happen.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DrConway:
This raises a serious issue.

---

quote:

---

It doesn't help create a flattering image of unions when the workers who are part of one reinforce perceptions of insiderness and clannishness by bringing their children into the workplace without explaining to them how important the union was in getting the higher wages in the first place.

---

I don't know where the CAW union headquarters are located, but it seems to me that it's not the same kind of situation.

That said, I have often brought up that argument when it comes to, say, journalism or performing arts. That is, that it could be quite legitimate for a child of a journalist to become a journalist herself, and to become good at it in her own right, because they have grown up around journalists and watched their parents doing it all their lives. Same as musicians (often musical ability runs in families, whatever combination of nature-nurture it might be) and actors, etc. Certainly, people should not be held BACK because their parents are in the same industry, and the child has chosen to follow in their footsteps.

However...there should be some serious measures in place to make sure that people aren't getting favoured for jobs because of nepotism. I know that in the Ontario government, you're not supposed to be able to get a job in the same office as a family member (or even in different offices that have official contact with each other). So, my mother, who is a middle manager with the Ontario government, can't hire me, or influence people in her department to hire me.

[ 01 October 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
I'm sorry, but I genuinely do not follow the logic of that "without" construction, as in I literally do not understand the connection or the implications for the earlier part of the sentence.

---

It is my feeling that children of union workers who are drawn into unionized jobs as a way to get summertime money don't fully appreciate the significance of all the sweat, and in some cases, blood and tears that went into the formation of the union that has maintained the good wage structure they benefit from.

The assumption that was probably not clear in my original post, although we all being leftists should be able to automatically insert it , is that $SON_OF_UNIONIZED_EMPLOYEE can get 17 bucks an hour while $SON_OF_SOMEONE_ELSE ends up clearing 6 bucks an hour "training wage" at the local 7-11.

[ 01 October 2005: Message edited by: DrConway ]

Also there were a bunch of young guys on the weekend clean-up at the sawmill, and I gotta say the level of conversation didn't exactly inspire confidence that their fathers were passing on the kind of values a union should inculcate.

In fairness, if they had gone full-time instead of just taking the job for summer money, maybe the culture would "seep in", but I again have no way of knowing how long it takes for that to happen.

[ 01 October 2005: Message edited by: DrConway ]