On
NPR's Morning Edition this morning, a reporter called attention to the
idea that the new "right-to-work" laws just put in place in Michigan
would cause the unions to lose, among other things, "clout." Doesn't
the use of this negative-affect word prejudice the reporting? What sort
of "clout" are we talking about? Does collective bargaining for the
benefit of workers, who are otherwise at the mercy of amoral corporations, really constitute "clout?" Especially when the
collective bargaining leads to better wages, enhanced benefits, safer
working conditions (which also benefits employers), and so on? Implying
that these are the result of having "clout" is the wrong way to frame
this discourse, in my (linguist's) opinion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
OK, somebody has to say it. 17 years ago close to 3,000 people died largely because the US was unprepared for an attack of that kind, or for...
-
The internet news site Common Dreams carried an article recently about a group of students from Liberty University visiting the Smithsonia...
-
I may write more about this later, but for now just examine the differences. Later... (added on Oct 9, 2010): Essentially, in apes the l...
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments and feedback are welcome, as long as they conform to normal standards of civility and decency. I will delete comments that do not meet these standards.