Canadians for the Employee Free Choice Act

American opponents of the Employee Free Choice Act have tried to use Canadian data to make their case against unionization. This past summer, Jim and I posted some initial responses.

This week, York University’s Centre for Research on Work and Society released a collection of articles by Canadian economists (including Jim and me) who support the proposed Act. Our work seems to be getting some pickup in the US blogosphere.

6 comments

  • That would be: Jim and I as in the *King and I.* Not saying that Jim is anything like Yul Brenner.

  • “Including”, in this case, could be a preposition. It could also be functioning as a participal (more likely, I think). In either case, using the object form of the first-person pronoun ie “me” rather than the subject form ie “I” is correct.

    >ba-ZINGGG!<

  • *including I* *including we* = egads! you are right.
    bc
    *including (us)*= including (X and me)

  • I did not intend for this post to provide a grammar clinic, but am pleased to see that it did.

    The way I think about it is to just imagine the sentence without the other person (Jim). Of course, one would write “Canadian economists including me” rather than “Canadian economists including I.”

  • “Canadian economists including I.”

    Grammar aside, that would sound really pompous.

    Truth be told (and it rarely should) once the lateral connection went to the King and I and then onto Yul Brenner and then back to you and Jim…well then it just had be…because my brain was too tickled with the images…laws of good grammar should never get in the way of humour.

    Damn, Todd got a good education in grammar somewhere.

  • >modest blush<

    Classical Latin, Classical Greek, (some) modern German; I teach English-as-a-Second-Language.

    Erin, my bill is in the mail.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.