This is a critical year for the labor movement as it attempts to revitalize and transform itself into a national progressive political force. The outcome of several major organizing campaigns and unions’ impact on the end result of the fall elections will determine the course of economic and social justice for generations to come. Yet with much of the discussion focused… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (15)Page 1 of 1 pagesI have worked for over 50 years and as a result of the present administration policies many of the gains made by American workers
have been eroded. I agree we must
stand up and be conted. It is time
to Unite and Fight for our way of life and our right to Unite. Very
good article.
Posted by Rosalie Stern on Jan 19, 2004 at 9:47 PM If the American labor movement were a racehorse someone would shoot it and put it out of its misery.Then maybe we could start over with a clean stable.
Posted by Gary Layden on Jan 20, 2004 at 5:49 AM I was a member of local 1 of H.E.R.E. back in the 80’s. The union was corupted and did little for the workers. I also saw the coruption of the Teamster Union where companies could payoff the agents and get what they wanted. The Labor movement is not for the workers as so much for themselves. I see them as any other business trying to my a profit. I believe in what Mr. Layden of Milwaukee is saying. We got to start over and bring back the labor unions to what they were attended to be: Defending the rights of the working people and protecting them at the work place.
Posted by jeff on Jan 22, 2004 at 4:32 PM This is a response to Gary Layden. Gary, who is your target audience, the people involved in the Labor movement, the people in unions, or working citizens like myself? In other words, whom are you talking to? Are you saying that all the work thatís been done so far is null and void and should not be viewed as having made some progress? Is it really a good argument to metaphorically ìshootî something when you havenít made substantial evidence as to why?
Posted by Nicole K on Feb 11, 2004 at 4:48 AM This is a response to Gary Layden. What part of the labor movement are you even talking about? You cannot have a strong argument by only saying two sentences. Are you saying that the labor movement is unimportant and there is no use for it? Or are you saying that we need to bring the unions and other organizations back into the movement to try to protect the workers rights? You do not say anything other than it needs to be shot so that we can have a fresh start.
Posted by Mike C on Feb 11, 2004 at 8:49 PM The labor movement surely needs some improvement. The workers should unite in fight for their rights. The racial and gender issues cannot be allowed to create a barrier between workers. Also, the access to unions should be available to all employees. These unions should also shift back to taking care of workers because this is their main job.
Posted by Anna C. on Feb 12, 2004 at 4:32 AM This is a response to Rosalie Stern. I agree that the workers must stand up and unite. How do you think that we could go about that? What sorts of gains are you talking about that have been eroded? It interests me to hear that workers say that they need to stand up and unite, but is there a core argument? To agrue for the rights of the workers you must come up with many important facts about the treatment of the workers. The article talks about the rights of everyone, will you fight for the rights of everyone? Just a few thoughts I had when I read your article.
Posted by Irina T on Feb 12, 2004 at 4:59 AM I agree that the labor unions should do whatever it takes to protect the rights of the workers. That is their whole purpose and they shouldn’t make it a business to earn profit out of it. The work of all labor unions should be reviewed and the govenment should take necessary action and replace the corrupted labor unions.
Posted by Syed H on Feb 12, 2004 at 5:07 AM The following commentaries are in response to Ty’s posted opinions (2/6/04) from Chicago. I’m not so sure if Gonzalez’s article is classified as another piece of writing with the sole purpose of whining and not offering a solution. I believe that Gonzalez’s article is more of a warning - notice the historical allusions, such as the Bracero Program from WWII in which terrible exploitations of Hispanic workers occurred. These historical references serve as a warning of what happened repeatedly in the past, and might potentially resurface due to the suggestive plan that Bush announced in his State of the Union Address. Essentially, the article “Second-Class Citizenship” serves a word of caution.
The way in which you interpretted “recruiting” may be off. You use the example of immigrants who “literally risk their lives to get here [America].” Are you perhaps mistakening these “immigrants” as refugees or human beings who are seeking asylum from treacherous conditions in their own nation? I agree that immigrants do put themselves at financial risk by coming to a brand new country, and leaving behind everything they knew. I’m not so sure if their lives should be at risk at all. In regards to the word “recruiting,” since Americans refuse to work in specific job areas, we thus created a demand for laborers. How are we supposed to communicate that need for laborers? Sometimes there is a time when laborers need to be recruited to pick that strawberry crop in Callifornia before it rots. Perhaps, the message is relayed through other immigrants who tell their friends or family. Whatever the case may be, whether or not they’re “recruited,” the line you used describing immigrantly dying to come over is an overused prejudiced stereotype. Why would they come if their lives were put into more danger? Unless of course their lives were already in danger like in the instances of refugees.
Posted by Katherine S. on Feb 12, 2004 at 5:29 AM I agree with Anna, I believe that unions should protect workers despite their ethnicity, race, religion, and etc. Workers should unite and fight for their rights. We do not necessarilly need to start over as Gary claims, but a reform could help. Unions should be free of corruption and available to all workers. Government should step in and provide fair unioins for the workers.
Posted by Lukasz M. on Feb 12, 2004 at 5:53 AM what is the purpose of union? i think Dorian explained it very well. labor union primarily do for all workers regardless of differences whatever they need to be equal in workplace. i agree with jeff’s thoughts. i think our labor union was collasped pretty much than we have thought. they just do for their benefits, not for the workers. thus union should start it over for the better.
Posted by Jonggun K on Feb 12, 2004 at 7:27 AM I agree that the labor unions need to be reformed. Ethnic, gender, and religious barriers are quickly becoming a thing of the past. We need to change the unions to meet todays standards. The workers deserve the right to be protected. They need to unite and have their voices be heard .
Posted by Lesley A on Feb 12, 2004 at 7:27 AM From reading this article, I think that the role of labor unions needs to be reevaluated. I agree with Syed in that there whole purpose is to protect the rights of the workers. It is my opinion that the labor unions have no place to be concerning themselves with issues such as profit.
Posted by Jacob B on Feb 12, 2004 at 9:23 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Dorian T. Warren
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2004 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
