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.
There’s a perceptible change in the mood of the Internet in regard the Bush administration. It’s sad, but reading the many articles and posts, and especially delving into the comments of each article reveal an America that is beginning to express their fear and raw distrust for Bush and Cheney. Some of the articles paint a picture of a nation living in fear of its President, and for me, that a first in United States history!
You can tell the people are disgusted, as every editorial and article you read almost universally condemns Congress expanding President Bush’s power to illegally spy on Americans, most of whom have absolutely no ties to terrorism. Now, he doesn’t even need a court’s approval… What message did this send to the rest of the world, those whose calls are routed through some of our main telecom switches?
At what exact time did the United States of America gain the legal authority to spy on virtually any international call that is routed through our system? What message does this send to other nations whose rights we are indiscriminately violating? It would seem that many of their fears may be well-founded – and tensions are increasing across the international board as Bush ratchets-up the illegal eavesdropping and continues to treat his neighbors with contempt and disrespect. We are clearly viewed as an “aggressor” in many parts of the world – a title that may be justified to a certain extent, and it’s escalating an arms race and military build-up world-wide.
The disappointment is heavy in the air, and no matter where I turned, there was another negative editorial by a host of prominent Mainstream New Papers.
Capitol Hill Blue was especially critical with an excellent story – and comments that show the true frustration of many Americans:
Failed Congress leaves town in disgrace
By DOUG THOMPSON
The Democrats who came to power with so much hype and fanfare after the 2006 mid-term elections limped out of Washington Sunday, battered and bruised from multiple losses to the most unpopular President in modern American history.
After seven months of failure after failure, the Democratic Congress compounded their many errors by passing a far-reaching bill that allows Bush to spy at will on Americans without court approval. All he needs is a sign off by his lackluster and flawed Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales.
The Democrats, of course, will spin their failures as some measure of success against high odds and will point to high profile bills like raising the minimum wage to bolstering U.S. security and expanding children’s health care.
But their main promise — to bring the troops home from Iraq — remain a broken pact with American voters and even with Republican defections from the President’s unpopular war, the Democrats lack the votes or the fortitude to stand up to Bush on his failed Iraq policy.
The spin started early Sunday with Democrats pointing to claimed victories and ignoring their many losses. MORE
Make sure and read the comments associated with the above article, and others I’m including for your perusal. RAW Story reported today there was a major security breach at the Los Alamos National Laboratory – and believe me, it wasn’t a minor breach!
Nuke weapons lab reports another major security breach
08/07/2007 @ 9:46 am Filed by Michael Roston
A government watchdog group warns that New Mexico’s Los Alamos National Laboratory, one of the nation’s nuclear weapons design laboratories, has again experienced a security failure of ‘the most serious’ level.
“An incident involving the unauthorized release of classified data via email occurred last week at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL),” reported a press release Monday from the Project on Government Oversight (POGO). “The incident…is rated among ‘the most serious threats to national security.’”
However, POGO also noted that the lab had attempted to change the classification of the security breach in order to minimize it. MORE
Again, as you read the comments associated with this story, it reveals more fear of the government, and each day, it appears that more and more Americans believe this government is capable of a false-flag attack within the continental United States upon its own citizens. What has become of our country when Americans are forced to live in fear of their own President?
On the Smirking Chimp, there are several excellent articles that point out the real possibility of Bush/Cheney declaring martial law – and they are respected writers who provide an excellent spot-on analysis of the situation:
All of the above articles are excellent, and demonstrate through logic and a thorough analysis of Bush’s recent Executive order(s) – so secret that senior member of the House Homeland Security Committee DeFazio has been denied access to Bush’s disaster plan. What is so secret that Democratic members of Congress are denied access to material that it is their mandated duty as Congressmen to provide oversight thereof? LINK
Is this what we have to look forward to in America? Why are we as a people allowing ourselves to live in fear? Bush’s foreign policy has the entire world on edge, as well as growing numbers of US citizens. More Americans are moving to Canada LINK than ever before, and we all know why they are moving; it’s interesting to note that it’s many of the intellectuals and those of higher education that are leaving. Perhaps they have already understood what too many of us are ignoring and failing to react to ourselves. Freedom, once tasted and embedded in our psyche, is unacceptable to lose, even if it means escaping to another country in advance of the coming fray. Many more are speaking of staying-on to fight rather than lie-down like our Congress is, and the tension seems to grow by the day. Where’s the outrage?
The writing is on the wall. We as a nation have never allowed ourselves to live in fear; we have fought and died all over the world in the pursuit of liberty and freedom throughout our history – and now it’s possible we face our worst enemy, and still – we remain essentially silent while our freedoms and rights are being stripped away at a remarkable pace, right before our eyes – and Congress is too cowardly to stand-up and protect those who elected them to office.
Get mad! But most of all, start organizing. I’m still astounded that during the KOS Convention, a cohesive plan wasn’t developed for all of the Bloggers’ to unite and try and organize the people. Congress has proved they will not stand up for the people, so now it’s up to us. There isn’t anyone left – and unless we wake-up and organize and speak with one voice, the many scenarios described in the above articles and comments could soon become a reality. Make the decision to do something about it yourself – and implore everyone you know to do the same. We owe it to ourselves, and we owe it to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and all of those that died before us defending its principles.
Can you imagine a person who's been robbed being barred from using the word "rob" at his assailant's trial? How can you tell a jury your wallet was stolen without using the word "steal?"
At Slate, Dahlia Lithwick writes of a Nebraska judge who has banned the words "rape," "assault," "victim," "assailant," and "sexual assault kit" from a rape trial. The victim says that after sharing a few drinks with a man in a bar, she blacked out, and awoke the next morning in the midst of being raped. But the only language left for her to use in the courtroom to describe this act is "sex" or "intercourse." As Lithwick points out, these are words that imply mutual consent. Is it any surprise the trial resulted in a hung jury?
The victim in this case is Torey Bowen. She has said, "This makes women sick, especially the women who have gone through this. They know the difference between sex and rape."
Why do we treat rape victims differently from the innocent victims of any other crime?
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
!
