Kay considers sexism in "trade professions" and after pointing out that jobs like hair dressing aren't counted as such precisely because women do them, suggests that
What would help is first what these truck mechanics Harding points to are already doing, mentoring young women in non-traditional fields. Secondly, unions that represent those industries need to not only be free of sexism themselves, but aggressively pursue lawsuits that would discourage sexual harassment. This is happening with some larger trade unions already, but it's not as wide as it should be.
I think this really sells short the potential for trade unions to take on discrimination. Any kind of organization with the resources can file a lawsuit - or individuals or groups can do it with no organization at all. In some cases, like the Dukes suit against Wal-Mart (largest class action suit ever in this country), that can contribute greatly to leveraging pressure on a company. But workers with a union can change the behavior of their employer in a slew of other ways. That includes negotiating with them. Union workers can and do win binding contracts obligating companies to take on unequal opportunity by creating training programs, by collaborating with community leaders and/ or non-profits, by submitting to oversight by workers, clergy, politicians, or whoever else to judge progress, to change work rules or job descriptions that create needless barriers for people who could otherwise do the job - and in any number of other ways. And these workers can enforce these commitments, as well as the company's legal obligation not to discriminate, through collective action and through a grievance process that moves faster, cheaper, and more accessibly than a lawsuit. The limits are defined by power on the shop floor and nationally or internationally in the industry. As Thomas Geoghegan wrote last year in his book See You in Court,
a big change has been the way we have moved from contract to tort. For most working Americans, the kind of people I represent, this accounts for the biggest change in the way the law now impacts their lives. In the 1950s and 1960s, up to 35 percent of workers, especially men, were covered by collective bargaining agreements...In the last thirty years, there has been a loss of contract rights - to a job, a pension, or even health care - unlike that in any other developed country. It is really a new legal regime that many Americans experience as infuriating, without being able to express that fury in an appropriate way.
Now the missed opportunities within substantial chunks of the labor movement to link arms as part of movements for sexual and racial inequality in the twentieth century is not unrelated to the steep decline in union power and union membership. But those workers Kay is talking about, who have unions, have an arsenal at their disposal to attack discrimination in the workplace - not only through contract language of course, but also through the kinds of action, client pressure, media strategies, and such that play part in winning recognition and winning contracts - without depending on the prospects of a lawsuit.
Many progressives were shocked by the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co to interpret workplace discrimination laws so narrowly as to throw out all cases that aren't brought within 180 days of a discriminatory pay decision. This is obviously unfair because one often does not realize for some time that their raise was inadequate. Rep. George Miller (D- CA) and 31 cosponsors have introduced legislation to reverse this unjust decision. Under the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, workers could instead bring suit within 180 days of receiving any paycheck affected by the discriminatory decision.
That might sound reasonable to you but apparently it's an outrage to the White House, which announced today a statement of administration policy strongly opposing the bill. Surely they must have some serious grounds for wanting to prevent potential victims of discrimination from having their day in court right? Wrong. They just hide behind the canard that the bill's "vastly expanded statute of limitations would exacerbate the existing heavy burden on the courts by encouraging the filing of stale claims." That's a pretty weak excuse. Am I crazy to suggest could we call the rightwing's bluff by introducing a bill to simply create more courts and hire more judges since that would presumably solve this problem they hide behind?
The day the towers fell was one I´ll never forget. All of us Americans no matter what our political stance we remember. My first reaction was shock and awe. I couldn´t believe someone would do something so crazy to so many people they didn´t know. But when I got home and turned on the TV there it was and they were indeed doing it. The faces of terror, confusion and disbelief just didn´t jive with any of the memories of my favorite city I had stored in my mind. This couldn´t be New York. I was glued to my TV set and forgot about the job hunting I was supposed to be doing. It was so painfully horrific. And to think all those people, brave firefighters, policemen and rescue workers were in there when it happened. A piece of my heart broke that day and hasn´t healed since.
I'm not the only one. The whole country was pushed from it´s center and rendered off balance. With no time to find our way back we did the best we could to find our way forward from where we were. We´re still not back to being back where we were. The old America seemed untouchable. Unable to be moved from it´s principles no matter what. Free and brave we all had a piece of the American pie as long as we put in the work to earn it. And at our cores there wasn´t a single one of us who believed we didn´t deserve it.
If somehow we found ourselves on the wrong end of the law we had the right to earn it back. I speak of our freedom. When one of us broke the law we became wards of the system of corrections. If we did our time worked extra hard and slogged our way back through the muddy trail of reform one day we´d be back shiny new Americans. Lessons learned with a bit of tarnish, some dents and perhaps a wrinkle or two. Take me for example. I broke the law when committing a violent act of student protest. Toiled for years if the fields of reform and finally realized my father´s dream when I was accepted to school and began to finally pick up where I had left off towards a new life. Eleven years had passed and I was ready for my new future.
So, in other news, a Rockford, IL woman who was born with a genetic disorder was denied service at a McDonald's drive-thru. Her disorder results in no arms, and, as a result, she does almost everything with her feet. When she tried to pick up the food at the drive-thru with her feet, the employees were disgusted by her and didn't want to give her the food. She was humiliated, and her son was ultimately given the food by the manager.
McDonald's response? They sent her a $10 gift certificate... which she probably can't use herself. Awesome.
I know the Delta Zeta incident was a few months ago, and has been discussed on this site, but as many colleges are finishing up the semester, I think it’s worthwhile to take a look back. The Delta Zetas became national headlines when the chapter at DePauw University kicked out women of color or who were not thin enough—those who did not fit the typical sorority girl look. However, it didn’t work out the way those responsible thought it would (this stunt was to attract more pledges): DePauw disbanded the Delta Zeta chapter. I went to the Delta Zeta national site, and found their creed, which is quite contradictory to their actions:
This week’s events over the racist and sexist remarks made by Don Imus about the Rutgers female basketball team were very unfortunate and made clear that we still have a very long way to go before we eliminate discrimination in all its forms. In many ways the Imus incident also highlighted the progress made on racial and women’s issues in America. It speaks to our culture that MSNBC and CBS were so overwhelmed by the response from the American people that they chose to cancel the Imus program. It was a big win for civil rights and women’s rights, but the Imus remark uncovered the deep-rooted stereotypes about African Americans and women that continue in our society. Read More »
MOQA Co-President Nick Ballen '09, in an interview last Tuesday, described the graffiti as directed at specific individuals, mentioning names along with words and images.
"The campus, in general, is pretty accepting - but there are underlying things that don't come up," said Ballen, on whether the incident was related to a larger sentiment across campus. "Sometimes that is harder for an organization to deal with. These incidents are 'isolated' but 'not' because there are smaller versions [of the graffiti] everywhere. This sort of incident reminds us to pay attention to such things around campus, because when we ignore the little things, something big like this happens."
The school has responded: with two open meetings—April 3 and tomorrow—and Middlebury’s Queer Alliance has been determined to bring up a necessary—if uncomfortable—dialogue at Middlebury.
Sage Bierster, in an opinion piece for the Middlebury Campus, calls for us all to stop unintentionally fostering discrimination by using certain, still commonly used words:
Please remember that Campus Progress' terms of use do not allow promoting or endorsing any particular political party or candidate for office. Posts or comments that do this will be deleted.
Posts
!
