Scholarships

America In Solidarity offers college scholarships to honor the memory of labor leader, activist and historian Ottilie Markholt. Ms. Markholt spoke at the 2004 May Day event about history of May Day and was one of the enduring labor figures in America In Solidarity's base city of Tacoma.

Our intention is to engage young people about the issues affecting working families by requiring an essay component to our scholarship. Over 400 applications were received for the Ottilie Markholt Memorial Scholarship this year. Every year, the quality of students and applications for the scholarship has improved greatly. You can click on the name to read the winning essays below.

Volunteers on our database will be notified in the Fall for the details about the 2009 scholarships.

The 2008 winners are:

$1,000 Grand Prize Winner

Lauren San Juan, Valley Springs, CA

$250 Scholarship

Catherine M. Judge, Elmhurst, NY

Jalisa Whitley, Geneva, NY

John Terada, Austin, TX

Nicole Pepperl, Stanford, CA

Matthew McGorrin, Littleton, CO

Chelsea Granger, Simpsonville, SC

Sivan Ben-David, Sunnyvale, CA

Louise Foisy, Rego Park, NY

$500 Service Scholarship

Kaity Miller, Portland, OR

Joaquin Recinos, Los Angeles, CA

Past Winners:

2007 $1,000 High School Grand Prize

Emily Moberg, Penncrest High School in Media, PA

2007 $1,000 College Grand Prize

Lila Zucker, University of Washington

2007 $200 Scholarship Winners

Danielle Megli, Pagosa Springs HS in Bayfield, CO

Brianna Kohr, University of California, Los Angeles

Michael Douglass, Maggie L. Walker Governor's School in Richmond, VA

In Un Flora Ng, Dartmouth College

Chelsey Donohoo, West Hills HS in Santee, CA

Roy Scranton, The New School University in Brooklyn, NY

Gene Plaks, University of Texas at Austin

Brandon Houx, Yelm HS in Yelm, WA

Sarah Brown, West Valley HS in Fairbanks, AK

Kyle Monette, Mililani HS in Mililani, HI

2006 High School Category Grand Prize Winner: ($1,000 Scholarship)

Anthony Tse, Auburn, WA

2006 Current College Category Grand Prize Winner ($1,000 Scholarship)

Maiah Albi, University of Oregon

2006 High School and College Semi-Finalists ($200 Scholarship)

Angelica Cassimiro, Newark, NJ

Julie Taylor, Pawcatuck, CT

Icela Garcia, Los Angeles, CA

Andrew Burleson, Irma, SC

Celestina Ripley, Soledad, CA

Nathan Wilmers, Huntington Woods, MI

Sara Stevens, Chandler, AZ

Wyatt Ellis, Puyallup, WA

Brett Smith, Fircrest, WA

Charlotte Aines, Glenview IL

If you wish to contribute to the scholarship fund please contact us at 253-471-1123 or email Todd at todd@americasolidarity.org

2005 Ottilie Markholt Scholarship Winners

$1000 Scholarship

Claire Keller-Scholz, Bellarmine Prep, Tacoma Washington. Plans to attend Gonzaga University.

Amanda Bordeaux, Bellarmine Prep, Tacoma Washington. Plans to attend Linfield College.

$200 Scholarship

Michelle Bowen, Gig Harbor High School, Gig Harbor Washington. Plans to attend Biola University.

Colby Blair, Rogers High School, Puyallup Washington. Plans to attend the University of New Mexico.

Briana Mason, Stadium High School, Tacoma Washington. Plans to attend Linfield College.

Students: Win a free t-shirt!

2008 Scholarship Winners

With over 400 applications, it took our scholarship committee an extra long time to decide upon the winners for our 2008 Ottilie Markholt Memorial Scholarship Contest. There were some tremendous essays and applications and we wish we had a few thousand more dollars to award more. We decided to award one $1,000 winner and eight $250 scholarships to eight runner-ups in the essay category. In our service category, there were two winners of our $500 scholarship that clearly stood out among the applications We will soon be posting the winning essays and information about the winners, but here they are:

$1,000 Grand Prize Winner

Lauren San Juan, Valley Springs, CA

$250 Scholarship

Catherine M. Judge, Elmhurst, NY

Jalisa Whitley, Geneva, NY

John Terada, Austin, TX

Nicole Pepperl, Stanford, CA

Matthew McGorrin, Littleton, CO

Chelsea Granger, Simpsonville, SC

Sivan Ben-David, Sunnyvale, CA

Louise Foisy, Rego Park, NY

$500 Service Scholarship

Kaity Miller, Portland, OR

Lauren San Juan

After reading hundreds of essays, at the top of everyone's list was Lauren San Juan's. Her keen essay about the importance of unions and her desire to support working families made her an easy pick for our top scholarship. She plans on attending the University of California- Santa Cruz in the fall.

I live in a rural area, 20 miles east of California’s central valley. The central valley has a strong presence of agricultural workers, laborers, and union members. As a young girl growing up in the central valley, I recognized early how moral responsibility, sacrifice, unity, and commitment bring progress. My early exposure to unions and growing up in a union family, has helped shaped who I am and who I want to become.

I learned at an early age about moral responsibility and sacrifice. When a popular soda company’s workers went on strike, we boycotted the products. Our neighbor, who at one time gave us free soft drinks from his employee surplus, asked my family to stop buying the brand until the labor dispute ended. I remember fighting back the urge to sip my favorite Sprite drink, yet proudly refusing it because its distributor wasn’t paying its workers fair wages. My parents pointed out the boycott on our local News channel and confirmed that our neighbor and his co-workers’ efforts, along with our sacrifice, to win a fair employment contract were important to all workers because it helped balance power. The news footage of protesters in the community also brought bad publicity to the soft drink manufacturer, who likely pressured the local distributor to settle. The experience also gave me a better appreciation for the manufacturers of products I use every day. I am more likely to buy a product when I know the path it traveled before arriving on the store shelf.

My family’s support for unions also brought another lesson on sacrifice and the impact of unity. When the local grocers’ union went on strike and workers gave up their pay, my family gave up the convenience of shopping at our neighborhood store. At the grocery store strike, we drove by daily to honk our horn in support. We brought the strikers food, water, and hot coffee in the evenings. One morning I arrived at a bus stop near the grocery store, after having walked several blocks in the cold and after whining about not catching a ride with my parents. As I planted myself quickly under the bus shelter as if I had walked through a winter storm, I caught a glimpse of all of the workers rallied around the store with their picket signs held high. How could they still be there? The mist from their warm breath billowed out into the morning frost, as they yelled in support of the union. I was reminded of their commitment. I understood the meaning of what “banding together” meant: pushing forward for progress (around-the-clock), without concern for preferred or predictable comfort. After months of “banding together,” they won their battle to keep the benefits they fought collectively to preserve. Their strong bond in the face of adversity really made an impression on me.

Unity among the workers happened during peaceful times, too. With my family, I attended many union picnics, ball park games, holiday parties, and parades where union workers congregated. At these events I bonded with other kids my age, while my parents networked with the workers and their families. At some point a truck‑driver or a politician or a civic leader would get behind the microphone and deliver a speech. As a child, I listened because it always came before the announcement of the Raffle prizes. Yes, I wanted to win tickets to the waterslide or to a movie. However, as each year passed, I listened a little more attentively and often I would hear a catchy phrase that would stick with me, like “An injury to one is an injury to all! ” or Cesar Chavez’ famous motto, “Sí, se puede” (translation: Yes we can!). Most of all, the union events served to unite workers and their families, and to build a network of workers, laborers, and activists. It made me feel a sense of belonging, and I learned to appreciate compassion and fellowship among people.

As I grew older, my understanding of the union and its relation to the rest of the world increased. My small gesture of boycotting my favorite soft drink evolved into precinct-walking to fight the governor’s proposed measures in 2005. California Governor Schwarzenegger had successfully replaced Democratic Governor Gray Davis in an earlier Recall Election. It would be challenging because voters loved the actor-politician Schwarzenegger, even some democrats. Governor Schwarzenegger’s Proposition 73 intended to increase the number of years teachers had to work before they could retire and Proposition 74 would have silenced the political voice of public employee unions. I walked door-to-door for an entire weekend and talked to registered democrats about the propositions, and sometimes I was discouraged by apathy and cynicism, but mostly people were supportive and liked my enthusiasm. By the second day, I was excited and I learned a lot from my fellow precinct-walkers who were mostly union activists from the Teamsters, the International Laborer’s Union, and SEIU. When the results came back in our favor, the feeling of accomplishment was overwhelming. It was empowering. My confidence and interest in the world around me was boosted. It helped me to be assertive in my beliefs, because I learned how ideas can evolve into meaningful change, that education on important issues matters, and that arguing a stance brings progress. Additionally, if we band together on important issues, we can reach more people and deliver a stronger, more amplified message.

The union’s advocacy for justice was an inspiration in my selecting a career goal, too. The picnics and parade speeches resurrect powerful messages, the chants and bullhorn speeches that called to action better pay and working conditions are amplified, and the shouting words of striking workers rallying around a store still ring in my ears. The message of organized labor resonates within me. Additionally, I felt connected to unionism because the workers advocating for justice was my father, my grandfather, and people in my community. I was equally impacted by the labor leaders I read about such as James Hoffa, Cesar Chavez, Delores Huerta, and A. Phillip Randolph. These leaders championed the rights and equality of workers. Driven by a similar thirst for justice and equality, I am inspired to become a labor law attorney and follow this calling. I am prepared to embark on an educational journey that will equip me to spread awareness and to continue the work of organized labor.

The labor union influence has also made a profound difference in my life on a personal level. I value friendship and family, and I understand how sacrifice, unity, and commitment are needed to make progress. Along with a good family upbringing and religious doctrine, labor unions are an integral part of our communities and human experience. I am the person I am today because I was raised in a union family and participated in union activities and events throughout my childhood. I witnessed the progressive change that unions can make through combined efforts. Most importantly, I am a rising citizen striving and willing to make a sacrifice to improve my quality of life. Similar to the striking workers, I want to be a part of the American dream.

Catherine Judge

Catherine was an easy pick for the judges. Besides being in the finalist pool for her essay, she was one of the finalists for our service scholarship. She'll be attending Queens College this year.

The descent of the Labor Movement has continued over the past few decades in the United States. Despite the recent successes of new organizing in unions like SEIU, Labor’s clout is in serious danger.

In addressing such a problem, it is necessary to first look at the factors attributing to the deterioration of the Labor Movement. The United States Congress quickly eroded accomplishments made by Labor with the passage of the Taft Hartley Act in 1947. The act gave more control to union leadership and set up bureaucratic structures, which took power away from the rank and file. Strikes of any kind were considered illegal and prevented solidarity actions with workers and communities. Grievances were no longer settled through direct action tactics, they were dealt with through a legal procedure as unions started to operate only within the confines of the law.

During the same time there was McCarthyism and blacklisting, and some of Labor’s greatest organizers were thrown out because of their “leftist” politics. Slowly, the political and class-consciousness of workers changed. Some unions began to morph into a business or service model in which the workers lost influence in the decision-making process. With the hostility towards leftist thinking, the notions of individualism shaped workers to think about themselves instead of solidarity with their peers.

When unions failed to address issues that were affecting workers both inside and outside of the workplace, workers put their energy in other movements where they felt more represented. The Civil Rights and Women’s Movements were addressing discrimination in the workplace when most unions were actively trying to keep people of color and women out.

As union leadership persisted to hurt their own and prevented organizing potential members, the political climate of the United States became increasingly anti-worker. The Labor Department and National Labor Relations Board continue to be grossly under funded and headed by people who are against unions. Neo-Liberal trade policies were implemented by the United States to encourage the lower prices of products which in turn resulted in de-industrialization, off-shoring, out-sourcing, and the massive loss of good paying jobs with benefits. Domestic policies within the United States, like “right to work” laws in southern states allows companies to move from areas with a high union density to the south where they can avoid unions. Neo-Liberal policies also stimulates a surge in global migration which, in combination with harsh immigration policies, allows for a class of exploited workers lacking basic human rights, and difficult to organize under the threat of detainment and deportation.

If Labor wants to gain strength in the United States, they need to remedy their history of discriminatory practices and encompass the intersections of oppression their members face. A protocol within the union for accountability of union leadership and staff will ensure a process workers’ can trust. If discrimination is not recognized, and problems like nepotism continues, workers will resort to other actions such as starting their own group or center. This failure divides and conquers and hurts the solidarity of the movement.

Unions need to broaden their narrow focus, because when they only fight for higher wages and health benefits then they become nothing more than an insurance company. Workers need to be more invested and involved in their union, which can be encouraged through education, and opportunities for decision making such as worker led projects and campaigns.

It is important to form community-labor coalitions that fight for rights in the workplace and in the communities in which the workers live. This idea is not new, for it was the reason for many successes in union organizing in the past. In the 1912 Lawrence, Massachusetts bread and roses struggle, the women and children in the community were essential to the workers’ achieving success. It was the unemployed that joined workers during the Great Depression that fought in the streets against company-funded gangs.

Issues such as affordable housing, public transportation, universal health care, welfare reform, childcare, immigrant, and domestic partnership rights all affect worker’s lives and should be recognized by the Labor Movement. Unions need to collaborate with social justice groups so they can violate injunctions, such as secondary boycotts, as a way for unions to circumnavigate the law.

Building leadership among youth and the rank and file, will shift power towards the workers and encourage a participatory democracy. Recognizing immigrant rights as worker rights and fighting against the anti-immigrant policies and the negative effects of globalization will help alleviate the struggles of the highly vulnerable undocumented workers.

Lastly, it is important to incorporate youth in the labor movement, not only as future leaders or workers but as extraordinary organizers. It was the youth that utilized text messaging and social networking sites to organize and lead school walk-outs during May Day 2006, preventing the passage of HR4437, and helped fuel the immigrant rights movement.

John Terada

John Terada, attending the University of Texas in Austin, impressed the judges with his insightful essay about trade.

Globalization in the last quarter of the century has exploded into a hot topic issue. This is especially true today pending an unprecedented presidential election. Globalization has brought itself both benefits and downsides. There is the positive aspect to consider, in which integration of economic and cultural interactions provide a proliferation of trade and a sense of connection with the wide expanse of the world. On the other hand, globalization presents the intricate issue of environmental regulation, fair workers’ rights, and shifts in the workforce that have not been maintained. While globalization began to slowly develop when European explorers began their quests westward and delved into the massive continents of Africa and Asia, it has now dramatically affected the daily lives of American working families. The World Trade Organization and free trade agreements such as NAFTA and CAFTA have unfolded a frightening dilemma. Between 1994 and 2000, it has swiped three million jobs, or 2.4 percent of the American workforce. All in all, it has slashed jobs in every single state since the NAFTA and WTO have been in effect in 1994 and 1995, respectively. While trade activity has gone up and proponents strongly urge more such trades to exist, we must first evaluate the ramifications of these treaties and agreements.

The United Nations labor organization, known as the International Labour Organization, has suggested examining these agreements due to the fact that there is a growing divide among the rich and poor nations and even within these countries. The International Herald Tribune has confirmed that in the United States—in which exists the greatest gap among the rich and poor—the top 10 percent claimed 48.5 percent of total income. That is an alarming statistic, seeing that this gap is the largest since 1928. In the United States, two-thirds of the three million jobs lost came from manufacturing with others from financial and insurance, transportation, and communication sectors. Hardest hit states include California, Ohio, Texas, Michigan, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and New York, where more than 100,000 of their residents lost their jobs to unfair foreign competition. Some may argue a protectionist economy may stimulate domestic industries. The world, though, will rapidly pass us by while we attempt to rebuild our economy in an “isolated” environment. Obviously, this does not seem like a viable solution when there is no way for isolationism to occur in a rapidly interconnected world and placing high tariffs on foreign goods may encourage others to do so for our exports.

The United States, because it is a wealthy nation compared to others, has been coerced to place a downward pressure on wages due to the integration of global free trade while enticing consumers with cheaper goods due to lower costs. It is this balance that creates a complicated situation: preferring cheaper goods or preventing loss of jobs and lower wages. The Economic Policy Institute has vigorously studied this issue and has tested economic theory to these global trade agreements. In theory, it has concluded that American wages will in fact be lowered and labor-intensive jobs will be lost. Production workers make up 75 percent of the American workforce. In addition, 70 percent of workers do not have a 4-year college degree. Thus, globalization can indeed cause major, detrimental and permanent harm by cutting wages or entirely laying off workers to sustain their competitiveness with the rest of the world. It is estimated that 22 to 29 percent of American work can be offshorable in the next one to two decades. The implication is, as global trade agreements occur, trade between countries may increase but it will greatly affect shifts in jobs and wages in America.

The North American Free Trade Agreement has boasted that 794,174 jobs were created. This is far misleading when the Economic Policy Institute has found that 1,673,454 jobs were lost, creating a net loss of 879,280. American investors have moved factories away from the unionized North to the cheaper, less unionized South and Mexico. With this in effect, normal working families like John Sonnier’s faced a grim future. His plastic pellet making company, A. Schulman, moved its factory to Mexico in 2003. He was forced to job hunt, and this came to a halt after unsuccessful attempts to find any. He began a home vinyl siding business, but with tireless work and having a tough time, he passed away from a heart attack in 2005—his insurance policy barely covering his burial costs and none to be left for his wife and children. This unfortunate story is not the exception, as one-third of those who lost jobs have completely disappeared from the labor force. The average, hard-working American family is now taking much of the heat. With manufacturing jobs going elsewhere, the existing manufacturers must lower wages to compete. In the quaint town of Chillicothe, Ohio, as documented by 60 Minutes, a paper company is facing hurdles to provide $20 an hour pay with full benefits. The owner of the factory disputes that other foreign paper companies are paying one-fortieth of that and do not worry of environmental regulation. Kenny Schoenholtz is facing a huge strain in which his once secure employment in the paper industry for 27 years is now facing a layoff in November. Tearfully, he comments on having to deal with an ailing wife, covering heightened expenses, and an unknown job prospect. Millions are trying to cope and make ends meet during this dark period of uncertainty. This blue collar, middle class state of Ohio has faced rampant home foreclosures and is coupled with high costs of goods and limited healthcare. In this state alone, 236,000 manufacturing jobs were wiped out, equivalent to a 23.3 percent drop. In 1995, General Motors was the top employer in the state while Wal-Mart Stores was ranked sixth. Today, that has all switched as GM drops employment from 63,200 to a mere 12,300. Jeff Faux, the author of The Global Class War, puts this grave situation this way: “NAFTA rules protect the interests of large corporate investors while undercutting workers’ rights, environmental protections, and democratic accountability…The time for a continent-wide debate over the future of this agreement, which was negotiated by and for the rich and powerful in all three countries, is now overdue.” Still, supporters of the NAFTA say exports have increased $104 billion between 1994 and 2004. Unfortunately in that same time span, imports have grown faster at $211.3 billion. Just as the paper industry in Ohio faced pressure to lower wages and benefits, studies show average wages in the U.S. that compete with U.S. imports from Mexico pay one to five percent more than jobs in industries that export to Mexico. Equalizing wages seems to be an inevitable conclusion for American manufacturers. For those that were reemployed, Americans faced a tough drop in wages of almost 11 to 13 percent. Because the manufacturing sector has a higher productivity than other sectors and has a higher unionization rate for earning higher share of marginal product, removing manufacturing jobs have an enormous effect on not only American families but to the American economy overall.

In 2005, the Central American Free Trade Agreement was heavily pushed to be implemented. Many opposition groups decry it as the continuation of a failed NAFTA. The deal has lost one million jobs in the United States while exacerbating trade deficits with Canada and Mexico. The poll conducted by Americans for Fair Trade indicates a majority (74 percent) are against the CAFTA even if it reduces consumer prices but leads to job loss. Shortfalls of CAFTA include the lacking protection for workers, taking away middle class jobs, and permitting corporate exploitation. While the Office of U.S. Trade Representatives emphasizes that U.S. agricultural exports totaled $1.6 billion in 2003, the Department of Commerce statistic actually reports it as being $834 million. They claim that with a large population and substantial purchasing power, the agreement with Central American nations and the Dominican Republic would expand U.S. farm exports. It is important to indicate here that CAFTA is a poor market for U.S. farm goods, for the GDP per capita is considerably low and extreme poverty is widespread. In fact, the United States endured an $812 billion dollar deficit with CAFTA countries in agricultural products in 2004. This deep concern for CAFTA on Americans is voiced by the AFL-CIO Executive Vice President Linda Chavez-Thompson. She told the House International Relations Subcommittee, “Instead of improving things, CAFTA will further oppress workers, depress wages in Central America, and cost jobs in the United States.”

My personal experience with the World Trade Organization, NAFTA, and CAFTA has been interesting, for I have faced both sides of the benefits and downsides of the international trade agreements, especially that of NAFTA. Before, my family and I lived in the Midwestern states of Illinois and Michigan. This had allowed me to endure the hardships faced by many living and working in these states. It was definitely much harder for my family to live in Michigan, with the extremely high cost of goods, keeping up with energy costs, house payments, and healthcare. As did many in the Detroit area, my father worked in the auto industry and I witnessed the strain businesses in this field faced as factories were being replaced elsewhere or closed indefinitely. Fortunately, my father did not face such deplorable conditions, but it is undoubted that many men and women in the community did. With tough times luring and my father working tirelessly, it is no wonder we decided to move to the South Texas area called the Rio Grande Valley. It has been a 180 degree transformation from Michigan. From the warm climate to the distinct culture, the area faced a different economic situation. Here, maquiladoras dot across the border from the port of Brownsville to the city of McAllen. Because it is a major supplier of workers, my father became a manager of one of many companies that built maquiladoras in the Mexican side of the border. Thus, my father drives daily to the Mexican city of Reynosa and drives back home to the American side. It is fortunate that my father was able to find a job here. Still, it is a disheartening feeling to imagine how many families are unable to relocate as easily and find job security. I have come to discover not to be against globalization and trade agreements in general, but against how it has been functioning and wrongfully places the burden among the breadwinning American families. A free trade must constitute a fair trade, where exploitation of people, workers, and jobs can be eliminated. All numbers and percentages aside, the global trade agreements draws a vivid picture. While it is a great opportunity for the United States to produce more goods and trade with others on a larger scale, it must have the consideration of its working families who have helped built the powerhouse America has become. The country owes its citizens at least that right: the right to live without worry and fear of what is to come.

Matthew McGorrin

Matthew McGorrin will be attending George Washington University in the fall.

For the past few decades, union membership has seen significant drops in the overall percentage of organized workers. Discuss ways to stop this trend and revitalize union organizing in America.

Few ever strive to sell their soul, to do so would be to surrender one’s highest human qualities. Ironically, this logic seldom prevents us from buying the soul of a fellow human. We buy these souls in product form…cool new Nikes, cheap DVD players, comfortable jeans …each purchase representing a worker’s lost freedom and forgotten dignity. What do these soulless individuals receive in return? Insecure employment, nothing more.

What can be done? Unions have fallen out of vogue in the United States, often seen as complacent, even corrupt, institutions. How, then, can we reconcile a decline in union membership with a rise in worker exploitation and poverty? These occurrences cannot be reconciled, they are correlated. The erosion of a unionized workforce has been the product of fear-based consumerism, greed, and ignorance.

It’s 6:00 P.M., traffic is out of control, and dinner needs to be made. But first, groceries must be bought. Hurriedly scoping the aisles of a large, sterile, warehouse-esque shopping outlet, everything is…well, cheap. Having purchased several respectable dinner options, it’s back to the hustle and bustle of everyday life. Wait. How was this store able to under-price everyone else? The answer is sobering: none of the workers at, let’s call it Mal-Mart, are unionized. As a result, a company like Mal-Mart can take its significant savings (money that should have been used to give its employees a living wage) and pass them on to the consumer! This directly fuels “fear-based consumerism.” In other words, afflicted workers, afraid of losing their money, will buy only the cheapest products. Consequently, these mistreated workers can only feed themselves and their families by giving business to companies that subject their workers to similar mistreatment. After a disgusting cycle of underpayment and low-price hunting, Mal-Mart comes out on top…unionized competitors have lost a large piece of the market to their non-union counterparts.

Where does this leave us? Despite the alleged existence of the “free market,” this scenario suggests something more along the lines of a “servile market.” The only remedy for this damning phenomenon is a conscious effort on behalf of the consuming masses to buy union-made/sold goods. Once this has happened, perhaps our friends at Mal-Mart (and similar companies) would be more inclined to support a pro-union agenda, and perhaps existing union-friendly businesses would have a fighting chance.

Of course, the de-unionization of the American workforce cannot be seen as accidental. The management of concerned companies has an invested interest in the decay of unions. After all, unions defend the best interests of the workforce, demanding wage increases that might prevent obscenely affluent executives from padding their bank accounts with even more money each fiscal quarter. The subterfuge employed against unions is multifaceted: subversive legislation (Free trade agreements), management-led deterrents to union membership, and other means of preventing progressive labor policy.

In fact, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA, implemented on January 1, 1994) has been an incessant obstacle to the pursuit of fair-employment and solidarity for American workers. In an economically foolish move, the governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States decided to eliminate tariffs on goods traded between one another. This agreement ultimately encourages a reallocation of domestic capital and materials (with respect to manufacturing, for example) to Mexico. The cheaper labor in Mexican factories allows for consistently greater profit without blow-back from penalizing tariffs. Adding insult to injury, NAFTA predominantly victimizes unionized labor, cannibalizing organized sectors (manufacturing, agriculture, etc.). If NAFTA has so many prominent set-backs, why has it prevailed? One reason: Greed. White-collar industrialists have made exorbitant amounts of money due to NAFTA. With access to penalty-free substandard foreign labor, American companies have saved vast sums on union-mandated services and payments while providing consumers the same basic goods. NAFTA has been so profitable that American politicians ushered in the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) in 2006. However lucrative these agreements might

seem, they are first and foremost predatory; precious union jobs disappear as wealthy entrepreneurs consolidate superfluous profits.

Next, a plethora of currently non-organized sectors have been antagonistic towards pro-union workers. The result has been a steady decrease in pro-union sentiment among workers that, in order to support their families, depend upon their current, albeit unfortunate, employment. Too few workers are willing to risk joblessness in order to challenge an established injustice. Therefore, vicious litigation must be thrown at companies guilty of firing (or intimidating) employees for expressing interest in unionization. This could include entirely dismantling “right to work laws” in each of the twenty-two states in which they exist. These are insidious laws preventing unions from mandating union-membership for all employees in a certain place of business. “Right to work laws”, sadly, act to diminish a union’s power when bargaining for better wages or benefits.

A line must be drawn between what is right and what is profitable. Perhaps the existence of a non-union economy allows for the greatest possible wealth amongst those at the top, but it also provides for the greatest possible poverty for everyone else.

Surely this greed must be the exception rather than the rule, right? Unfortunately, it is the rule. Let’s take a recent imposition by Qwest, a large communications company, for instance. Management at Qwest gave “urine bags” to its field-workers in order to cut down on time wasted by workers looking for public restrooms. (For more, see “Union: Workers Told to Use Urine Bags” AP). Luckily, union officials nipped this affront to basic humanity in the bud. Yet, companies are able to commit greater and greater outrages in sectors without a prominent union presence. The only way to pull corporate interests in line with those of workers is to support companies that embody ideal behavior. So, instead of allowing companies to persecute and humiliate their employees, change the system with buying power. If a company seems to be avowedly anti-union, support their pro-union competitors. By including friends and like-minded individuals, a desirable change can be attained quickly.

What if grass-roots protest and economic rebellion is ineffective? Political action never fails in the United States of America. By vocalizing pro-union affiliations and a desire to see systematized anti-labor movements such as NAFTA/CAFTA abolished, politicians will ultimately serve their unsettled public. Presidential candidates without a committed pro-labor stance should be avoided like the plague; meanwhile those that support worker solidarity should be given ardent support.

In an age where perhaps 1 % of teenagers recognize the name “Cesar Chavez”, while 99.9 % recognize the name “Brittney Spears”, the realization that unionized labor will prosper or fail due to popular support can be frightening. Indeed, the decline in union membership over the last several decades has been symptomatic of an increasingly ignorant American public. Removed from pivotal economic situations such as the “Great Depression”, perhaps the standard worker has forgotten why unions are necessary. Instead of perceiving solidarity as a means of ensuring valuable employment for years to come, solidarity might be nothing more than a synonym for “paying dues with no benefit.” Needless to say, union membership has never been as important as it is now. In the wealthiest nation on earth, no one should be forced to choose between unfair wages and unemployment. Therefore, it is the responsibility of every capable citizen to promote union membership, solidarity, and fair labor policy throughout his or her community. Companies that haven’t been unionized should be introduced to pro-union literature. Only through massive publicity can the future of unionized labor be guaranteed. To reiterate, public sponsorship of pro-union politicians is essential to the longevity of organized labor, but smaller operations could also promote a desired result. Bake sales, carnivals, and/or information nights for curious, non-union, workers could act to eradicate misconceptions and doubt. As an individual, even contacting local newspapers or radio stations about labor concerns could enliven new segments of the community that had been previously disinterested in unionization.

It is time to face the facts, the state of organized labor in the United States will change only through our efforts, and we can’t afford to wait. This isn’t a matter of triviality, the livelihood…nay, lives, of millions of Americans hang in the balance.

Martin Luther King, Jr. once said “the labor movement did not diminish the strength of the nation but enlarged it.” As a nation, we must realize that organized labor is the inheritance of any human intent on receiving payment proportionate to their efforts. Despite the corporate plots to dwarf and undermine inalienable rights from laborers, the decision to organize ultimately falls on the American public. A combination of grassroots political movements, selective spending, and public dissent will usher in an age of unequalled worker empowerment.

Nicole Pepperl

Nicole Pepperl, attending Stanford University, wrote a great essay about free trade agreements.

The globalization of trade fueled by the World Trade Organization and recent free trade agreements has led to a decreased standard of living for America’s working families because businesses can freely outsource jobs to cheaper countries. The garment industry in particular illustrates how globalization creates a race to the bottom in working conditions both in America and internationally. Free trade agreements replace American garment factories with sweatshops abroad, negating the hard-won labor victories made at the turn of the 20^th century. I became involved in the anti-sweatshop struggle on my campus when I learned my university was doing nothing to guarantee the rights of workers to collective bargaining, fair wages, and safe working conditions. I believe that anti-sweatshop activism is necessary to protect the rights of workers in America and abroad by ending the downward spiral of globalization.

Garment sweatshops were at the heart of the fight for better labor rights in the 1890s and early 1900s. The hazardous conditions and starvation wages in American sweatshops had been criticized for years in books and photographical exposés, but a major turning point came in 1911 when 146 trapped workers, mostly young women, died in a fire at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory in New York City. The event sparked national outrage and fueled the successful push by the 1930s for safety codes, minimum wage, and trade unions. Campaigning under the banner of eradicating sweatshops, protestors were able to improve conditions for many other working Americans by increasing the power of labor codes and unions. Thus, a push to improve conditions in the garment industry improved the lives of all workers. Unfortunately, the labor victories proved short-lived. Within a century, the sweat-shop conditions that had been the source of such protest and activism were simply replicated overseas.

Worried about cheap exports from developing countries, industrialized nations created the Multi-fiber Agreement to impose import quotes on textiles and clothing in 1974. When the World Trade Organization came into being on January 1, 1995, one of its first acts was to begin a ten-year phase-out of the agreement. The impact from the removal of quotas and tariffs on the American garment industry was staggering. Once given the opportunity to outsource, factory owners quickly did so, moving operations to developing countries with lower wages and laxer safety codes. In 1974 less than 10 percent of clothing sold in the U.S. was imported; by 2005 this number had skyrocketed to 80 percent, according to data from the U.S. Economic Research Service. Free trade proponents claim that the outsourcing of jobs is beneficial for the average American by reducing the cost of the clothing. However, the primary cost of clothing is retail mark-up, while labor represents less than 2 percent of the total cost, according to a 2004 study by researchers at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst.

Even before factories began outsourcing to developing countries, owners kept wages low by relying on immigrant labor—particularly young women. As immigration shifted, so too did the factories: Eastern European immigrants in New York were replaced with Latino immigrants in Texas and southern California. But the conditions remained the same. Workers faced long days, low wages, and no benefits. Some even worked in slavery-like conditions. In August 1995, a government raid of a factory in El Monte, a suburb of Los Angeles, found 72 Thai workers had been trapped in a compound surrounded by barbed wire and forced to work 16-18 hour days for less than 70 cents an hour, according to the Los Angeles Times. Like a modern Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire, the event awakened public attention to the presence of sweatshops in America and abroad, fueling the anti-sweatshop movement of the 1990s.

Although the El Monte case was an extreme example of sweatshop conditions within the United States, many garment workers in Los Angeles endure poor working conditions and very low wages. Factories regularly ignore labor laws in order to increase competitiveness by cutting costs. According to a 2003 study by the U.S. Department of Labor, less than one third of Los Angeles garment factories comply with state and federal labor laws, such as minimum wage standards and overtime pay. Unfortunately, the structure of the garment industry makes it difficult to increase worker power by unionizing. As part of our campaign, we screened a PBS documentary on sweatshops called “Made in L.A.” and invited one of the featured workers, Guadalupe Hernandez, to come speak. Because she now works as a community organizer, she was able to take the time to speak at our event. Ms. Hernandez spoke of the extreme difficulty in attempting to unionize due to the unskilled nature of the labor and the ease with which garment factories can be relocated. Workers who decide to unionize can come to work the next day to find that the entire factory had been moved, and entirely new workers hired. But she remained confident in the power of organization since she and fellow workers had recently led a successful lawsuit and boycott against a famous retailer, resulting in a favorable settlement.

When the low wages in Los Angeles become too high for the tastes of factory owners, businesses relocate to developing countries such as Bangladesh, China, and India. Like the immigrant workers who had previously filled these jobs in the United States, the workers of these countries are willing to work for extremely poor wages and in hazardous conditions out of economic desperation. These poor conditions then require the factories remaining in the U.S. to lower wages to continue competing with sweatshops abroad. Globalization hurts American workers twice over: first, by directly outsourcing jobs, and secondly, by lowering working conditions in the U.S. due to competition from developing countries. Each factory competes to see who can reduce costs the most by cutting corners on safety and lowering wages. The loss of labor’s power due to globalization has harmed not just America’s working families, but all workers, by creating a race to the bottom in wages and working conditions.

The goal of early labor activists was to improve working conditions, and this is still the goal of the modern-day anti-sweatshop movement. Because of the global nature of the problem, the majority of activism has focused on pressuring American retailers to implement standards and monitoring to maintain a baseline for working conditions and wages both in America and abroad. One particularly active area of the anti-sweatshop movement has been on university campuses. Colleges have the power to influence manufacturing decisions thanks to their control over logo licensing decisions. If efforts to improve working conditions such as codes of conduct and monitoring can be shown to work for college apparel, then these same tools can be applied more broadly to the industry as a whole. My university has been slow to adopt these standards. Stanford joined the Worker Rights Consortium, an independent monitoring organization, in May 2007, but only after intense student pressure culminated in a sit-in at the administrative offices.

The right to unionize is the most important right protected by university codes, since unions are key to securing all other rights. However, this fundamental labor right is sometimes ignored, even in the United States. In late 2007, the New Era Hat Company factory in Mobile, Alabama was accused of union-busting by workers who had attempted to form a union to improve wages and working conditions. Because the factory produces college apparel for several members of the Worker Rights Consortium (including Stanford), the organization conducted investigations and in January 2008 reported that the factory discriminated against African-Americans in pay and promotion decisions and had recently union-busted by firing 20 union-supporting workers. In response to the report, two universities cut ties with the factory and five more began the process. Thanks to pressure from students and universities, one month later, the company reinstated all 20 workers and officially recognized the union. It was a great victory for the workers of the Mobile factory, but the garment industry will not be fixed a single factory at a time when so many factories continue to ignore basic labor rights.

The key to improving working conditions is recognizing that similar labor problems have been solved before. The term sweatshop originated in reference to the sweating system where the production of clothing was subcontracted by middlemen called sweaters to workers at extremely low piece-rate wages. This isolation kept workers unable to organize and collectively bargain with their true employer. Free trade agreements have recreated this sweating system on a global scale as corporations subcontract work to factories that compete to keep wages as low as possible. Proponents of globalization argue that sweatshops will eventually disappear as workers in developing countries undergo their own industrial revolution. But the history of American sweatshops clearly indicates that improvements in working conditions are won only through the collective organization of workers. The force of globalization requires that workers and allies stand together to demand fair conditions for all workers. Americans should be able to compete with workers in developing country on an equal footing of safe and fair working conditions.

I often find the greatest difficulty in speaking to other students about modern-day sweatshops is their complete lack of knowledge about the history of the fight against American sweatshops. The minimum wage and safety codes didn’t come into being because corporations felt sorry for workers, or because the government stepped in when it saw a problem, labor activists were the ones responsible for creating all the labor rights we enjoy today. The problems of globalization can only be solved in the same manner—by organizing to fight for workers rights. Progress doesn’t just happen on its own, we need to make it happen.

Nicole Pepperl

Nicole Pepperl, attending Stanford University, wrote a great essay about the impact of trade agreements.

2008 Service Scholarship

America In Solidarity is offering two $500 scholarships to high school seniors and current college students to students who have demonstrated an active participation in making the world better for working families. Ideal candidates will have spent time volunteering or working in the areas of social justice, progressive politics, community-building, and/or the right to organize. Our intention with this scholarship is to help future progressive leaders continue with their extra-curricular service by enabling them to help pay for college. The scholarship is open to all residents of the United States attending an accredited college or university in the United States.

To apply, send us the following:

A cover letter explaining your service and how you have made a difference
A resume detailing your service, school activities, major, college (or prospective colleges) and other important details
One letter of recommendation

2008 Ottilie Markholt Scholarship

America In Solidarity is offering a minimum of $4,000 in scholarships to qualified high school seniors and current college students. At least one $1,000 grand prize scholarship will be given to a current high school senior and at least one $1,000 to a current college student. Total amounts given will be determined by the Scholarship Committee. AIS awarded $2,600 in scholarships in 2005 and $4,000 in 2006 and 2007. The scholarship is open to residents of the United States planning to attend accredited colleges and universities in the United States.

The applicants must send a cover letter or resume with the required information and write a 3-5 page essay. Deadline for application submittal is April 1, 2008. Winners will be chosen based on the merit of their essay, grades and activities. Contact AIS with any questions.

Applicants need to include: Name, Address, City, Phone, email, high school or college, GPA, prospective colleges (if applicable) and majors, and a list of school and community activities.

They will also to need to include a 3-5 page typed essay on one of the following topics:

1. For the past few decades, union membership has seen significant drops in the overall percentage of organized workers. Discuss ways to stop this trend and revitalize union organizing in America.

2, Analyze the impact of the World Trade Organization and recent free trade agreements (like CAFTA nad NAFTA) on America's working families.

3. Describe how a union has benefited you and/or your community.

Past awards were weighted toward the quality of the essay more than grades. Essays that showed the writer’s personal connection to the topic were also more likely to win. Essays that were obviously recycled school papers were not highly considered.

Send your essay and resume in a 8.5 x 11 envelope to

America In Solidarity, Attn: Scholarship Committee.

3049 S. 36th St. Suite 205, Tacoma WA 98409

2007 Scholarship Winners

Well over two hundred students applied for the 2007 Ottilie Markholt Memorial Scholarship. The scholarship committee met for over six hours to determine the winners. Thanks to Todd Iverson, Gail Ross, Mike Jagielski, Dan Sexton, Marilyn Kimmerling, Logan Welfringer and Brianna and Jeff Richardson for serving on the committee. The winners were judged on the quality of their essay and commitment to community and academics. Click on each winner's name to read their essay and about them.

This year's winners are:

$1,000 High School Grand Prize

Emily Moberg, Penncrest High School in Media, PA

$1,000 College Grand Prize

Lila Zucker, University of Washington

$200 Scholarship Winners

Danielle Megli, Pagosa Springs HS in Bayfield, CO

Brianna Kohr, University of California, Los Angeles

Michael Douglass, Maggie L. Walker Governor's School in Richmond, VA

In Un Flora Ng, Dartmouth College

Chelsey Donohoo, West Hills HS in Santee, CA

Roy Scranton, The New School University in Brooklyn, NY

Gene Plaks, University of Texas at Austin

Brandon Houx, Yelm HS in Yelm, WA

Sarah Brown, West Valley HS in Fairbanks, AK

Kyle Monette, Mililani HS in Mililani, HI

Brianna Kohr

Brianna Kohr, a freshman at UCLA, is quite active in her community and a member of the school's Honor College. Her essay on the necessity of unions easily gained the scholarship committee's attention.

Why America Still Needs Labor Unions

"What does labor want? We want more schoolhouses and less jails, more books and less arsenals, more learning and less vice, more constant work and less crime, more leisure and less greed, more justice and less revenge. In fact more of the opportunities to cultivate our better natures, to make manhood more noble, womanhood more beautiful and childhood more happy and bright."

Samuel Gompers

When Samuel Gompers delivered his famous impromptu oratory now fondly referred to as the “More! More! More!” speech before a mass gathering of Chicago workingmen in 1893, the American labor movement was still in its infancy. Just seven years before, in 1886, Gompers became the founding president of the American Federation of Labor, America’s first labor union. This was a bleak time in the history of the American workingman. The health insurance, sick pay, overtime pay, vacation time and pension plans we now take for granted were unthinkable luxuries in the early days of union organization. Every day, workers feared for their job security, knowing that if they didn’t meet grueling quotas, they could be fired on the spot without the benefit of union legal representation. The Constitutional right of all Americans to peaceably assemble was constantly violated by union busters who rooted members out of their jobs and prevented unions from instituting collective bargaining practices. Hence, American workers became the victims of wage slavery. In revolting and dangerous conditions, these workers toiled for unreasonably long hours each day. Women and minorities were the victims of wage discrimination, and instead of spending their days in school, children as young as eight were subjected to slave labor. These men, women and children were dehumanized and robbed of their dignity; their fundamental rights were ignored.

This is a far cry from the situation of the American workingman today, who owes his worker benefits, job security and right to bargain for fair wages, hours and working conditions to the existence of labor unions. America’s underrepresented minorities and women owe thanks to labor unions for ensuring their equality in the workplace. Because of labor unions, American children are where they belong: behind desks in schools instead of conveyer belts in factories. American needs labor unions because they stand for the very essence of what it means to be an American. Unions preserve the institution of the American family and protect the Constitutional rights that lie at the heart of this country.

Without a doubt, union rights are family rights. Union efforts ensure that employers must take the needs of working families into account and respect their rights. Before union representation lobbied for workers’ benefits, employers showed no mercy on sick employees or their family members. Because of tireless union efforts, today’s American workers enjoy the benefit of sick pay, and extended paid leave is available through disability benefits. Additionally, union efforts are responsible for the health insurance benefits of American workers. I cannot begin to express how instrumental these benefits have been in the preservation of my own family. When my dad dislocated his knee, not only did his company provide him with paid leave on disability, his surgery was covered by his company health insurance plan. When my mother was pregnant with my two younger siblings and I, she had no difficulty taking paid temporary leave and returning to her job. Countless times my parents have benefited from sick pay when either they or my siblings have fallen ill. Because of my father’s company provided health insurance plan, my family was able to afford the open heart surgery that saved my life as a child. My family’s indebtedness to labor unions is not unique. Any worker who has used health insurance, taken a sick day or benefited from disability leave, virtually every American, owes their thanks to labor unions.

Unions have also successfully lobbied for safety standards that prevent dangerous accidents in the workplace and provide worker’s compensation for those who do encounter an accident on the job. The sad reality that occurs when unions are shut out of the workplace is apparent in the case of my childhood babysitter, a former employee of Home Depot, an openly anti-union company. Due to the company’s unsafe working environment, she sustained a serious back injury when a heavy box fell off a forklift on top of her. Because of the lack of union representation, she received no disability benefits, had to finance the majority of back surgery and rehabilitation on her own and was forced to find a new job. Her family was devastated by this accident. With a main breadwinner suddenly out of work and incurring huge medical expenses, they were forced to move to a rundown apartment, and the family’s college age son had to discontinue his education in favor of working a minimum wage job. An immigrant from Laos, my childhood babysitter could not read or write and was therefore helpless against the juggernaut Home Depot Company, which at the time barred union membership for its employees. If she only had the benefits of a union appointed lawyer, I have no doubt she and her family would have been protected from the financial burden of immediate unemployment and exorbitant medical expenses the company should have covered.

Labor unions are responsible for the fair pay and reasonable working hours that help American families to remain strong and stable. They are perhaps the most important factors sustaining American family life. Without unions, there would be no minimum wage, no limit on working hours and certainly no vacation time. Collective bargaining for fair wages enables workers to provide adequately for their families, while negotiation for appropriate hours ensures that working parents are able to spend time nurturing their children. Vacation time provides families with room to relax, bond and strengthen family ties. Before unions played a prominent role in American society, families suffered from the poor wages and unreasonable hours demanded by their employers. This is strikingly evident in The Jungle, Upton Sinclair’s groundbreaking expose of early twentieth century working conditions. The novel follows a young Lithuanian immigrant named Jurgis Rudkus, who represents American workers before unions offered them much protection. At his job in a Chicago meatpacking plant, Jurgis witnesses unbelievable labor practices that violate every single one of the rights unions now defend, including fair wages and working hours. One of the novel’s most striking examples of wage slavery occurs when the meatpacking plants “hire” extra men, driving down wages by creating a labor surplus. Later, the workers become aware that these extra men were being trained as strikebreakers. Due to wage slavery, every one of Jurgis’ family members are forced to work in the factories, including his pregnant wife, his stepmother’s young children and his dying father. Because the family can’t afford a doctor, Jurgis’ wife, newborn child and father all die. At the end of the novel, Jurgis is left a transient, wandering the streets without a family.

In addition to the protection labor unions afford American working families, unions play an integral role in defending our treasured Constitutional rights. The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution grants equal protection under the law to all citizens. Sadly, to this day, workers experience discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, gender, religious persuasion, pregnancy, age and other factors despite Constitutional protection. In 2006, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission division of the U.S. Department of Labor received 13,569 charges of age discrimination, 14,893 charges of disability discrimination, 4,901 charges of pregnancy-based discrimination, a whopping 27,238 charges of racial discrimination and an unbelievable 23, 364 charges of gender discrimination. In a striking example of the American workplace’s glass ceiling for women, the US Census Bureau reports that on average, women are paid 77 cents for every dollar made by men. Thankfully, labor unions have played an integral role in helping to fight this kind of discrimination in the workplace. The AFL-CIO helped draft and pass the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These two pieces of legislation combined to end discrimination both in and out of the workplace. Furthermore, unions continue to provide representation to workers who have fallen victim to discrimination in the workplace, ensuring that employers respect the equal rights guaranteed to all workers under our Constitution and other legal statutes. Union membership is important because it helps close the gap in wage discrimination. According to the AFL-CIO, union women earn 38% more than their non-union counterparts, African American union members earn 42% more than their non-union counterparts and Latino union members earn 52% more than their non-union counterparts.

Labor unions have also made possible the ability of workers to strike and bargain with employers. In the early days of union organization, workers strikes were vehemently suppressed, and workers didn’t have a means to end the unfair labor practices to which they fell victim. Employers constantly violated their employees’ Constitutional right to peaceably assemble when they blacklisted union members and striking workers. Without the union lobbyists who helped draft and pass the National Labor Relations Act in 1935, employers would still be partaking in the subversive and unlawful tactics that hindered workers’ ability to strike and bargain for fair working conditions in the past. My aunt is an employee of a southern California Safeway store. Three years ago, she actively participated in a one hundred day strike when Safeway tried to revoke employee healthcare benefits. As a result of the strike, Safeway was forced to bargain with the grocer’s union, and my aunt, a single mother of three, kept the benefits that provide for her entire family. Today, it is almost impossible to browse a newspaper without finding an article about American workers striking and bargaining for decent wages and benefits. But if my aunt and her fellow Safeway employees had conducted such a strike in the distant past, their names would have likely appeared on a blacklist rather than a healthcare roster.

We as Americans must realize that the fight for workers rights is not over, it is ongoing. Every time unions achieve victories for workers, new challenges arise in their place. If unions were to suddenly disappear, nothing would stop employers from slowly chipping away at all the ground workers have gained over the past century. Without the instrumental role of unions in the workplace, American workers would currently be experiencing grievous violations of their Constitutional rights. The salaries and benefits that sustain American family life are constantly under attack, and without unions, they would not be around for long. As famous columnist and political pundit Molly Ivins once said, “If you are making a decent salary in a non-union company, you owe that to the unions. One thing that corporations do not do is give money out of the goodness of their hearts.” Every American, union member or not, needs to recognize that their well being in the workplace depends on the continued support of labor unions.

Chelsey Donohoo

Chelsey Donohoo will graduate this spring from West Hills High School in Santee, CA. Her essay about her grandfather's union and the importance of unions in America was well-received by the scholarship committee. She plans on studying biology at UCLA and has been an active volunteer with the Salvation army.

A Tradition Forged in Snow

Standing in the Alaska snow, a northern wind blowing, picket signs in hand, and a will of righteous determination that cannot be broken; this is where I come from. The history of American labor unions is filled with heart-breaking failures, gut-wrenching victories, and the blood and sweat of many a good man and woman. It is a cause that many have given their lives for and was a source of great pride for my grandfather, a pride that has been passed on to my mother and father and has seeped into my own roots, saturating me with a deep respect for the great tradition of American labor unions.

In these current days of political strife and economic uncertainty labor unions are no less important than in the days of my grandfather. Acting as the champion of the working man, unions continue to assert the rights of America’s forgotten silent majority. Without these safety nets, the needs of the working class would go unnoticed and overlooked as they once did in the days of the oil tycoons and railroad monopolies, days in which one man could quash the hopes of many and the president himself sent in the military to stop an attempted strike. Today, unions continue to function as their original purpose intended; they ensure that each member receives the treatment each human being deserves as well as just payment for their dedication and hard-work. To eliminate unions now would not only remove the voice of millions of Americans from public policy but initiate a widespread neglect of the average American’s claim to decency as literature, history, current conditions, and my own past have demonstrated.

Strong in American literature is the theme of the battle of the underrepresented majority versus the powerful forces of the elite. A prime example of such books can be found in the writings of John Steinbeck. Throughout the novel Of Mice and Men Steinbeck subtly shows the conditions of men who were forced to cope in a world where unions were not available. Opening with a scene of two “working stiffs” looking for a decent job, Steinbeck demonstrates the circumstances of many Americans who were left jobless and defenseless in the wake of the Great Depression. These two men come to embody one of the greatest tragedies that can and has touched American soil, the man that has the desire and capabilities to work but is left without a job and without hope of a champion. Lenny and George are left to fend for themselves in a world that refuses to give them a chance. This novel is a call for men to come together in their times of need and support those, like Lenny, who can no longer speak for themselves, a philosophy that embodies the spirit of labor unions. In another Steinbeck work, The Grapes of Wrath, an American family during the dust bowl moves to California in search of a better life and finds only tragedy and heartache. More blatant than Of Mice and Men, in its petition for labor unions, this novel demands that the working man receive his just dues after years of mistreatment and hardship. Directly resulting from lack of organized labor the Joads are forced to except ever decreasing wages at a fruit farm or be thrown out of the job. Taking advantage of the job shortage the owners hire men at next to nothing wages so that a man must choose between starvation and near slavery. As the book vividly demonstrates, men will do anything, including accepting these insulting conditions, when their children’s bellies have begun to swell as a result of hunger. During the coarse of this novel the Joads begin to lose family members as their plight worsens and their conditions reach a new height of deplorability. Casey, the preacher, is killed as a result of trying to organize people to fight these injustices and Tom is forced to flee after defending himself against the bosses’ gangs who threaten to eradicate those that dare defy the rich and powerful. Calling for a social change, Steinbeck wishes to install in the American tradition a safeguard for the majority of working Americans who have been abused and tossed around without any means for protection. Steinbeck is calling for a champion of the masses, a champion that can now be found in labor unions.

Historically, America has been recognized as the land of opportunity and the protector of equality. Although these names are justly given there have been dark moments in America’s past that have threatened the validity of such names. Such has been the case when the American labor movement was rejected and violently suppressed. As Americans began to demand fair treatment and a guarantee of some semblance of stability bouts of battle and bloodshed resulted as men were forced to fight for this right. Gangs, corrupt politicians, and sometimes even police were sent to stop these men who threatened to put a dent in the bosses’ profits. Handing out next to slave wages and offering hazardous conditions, the owners stood to make more money but the workers refused to submit to this treatment any longer. At first in secrete, since unions were illegal, than in more brazen acts of defiance men began to call for change and protection. Soon, the whole country was in an uproar over the conditions of the people in which this country was founded, the men who were willing to give their heart and soul for a decent, honest days work. Fortunately, reason and justice was on their side and unions became legal and change began to happen. Steinbeck’s call had been answered, not by the powerful, but by those who had suffered silently for too many years. The time for a revolution had come and resulting from these men’s brave defiance is the sanctuary that unions offer.

Moving to current day, I find the product of unions at work in the stories that my mother and father bring home. My mother is a parole officer for the Sate of California and a member of the California Correctional Peace Officer Association (CCPOA). Keeping her rights intact the CCPOA advocates for public policies that will further the goals of its members. The CCPOA also ensures that the State of California does not violate the rights of its members; if only the men of old could see this day when a union could force the government to adhere to its demands, their pride and amazement would be an honor to receive. The gratitude my mother feels at knowing she has an ally in the CCPOA is enough to leave an impression and an answering appreciation that will remain with me for the rest of my life. Although my father is no longer in a union, as he is a civil litigation attorney, he also brings home stories that make me recognize the importance of unions. A great percentage of his client base is employees that are victims of unjust termination, dangerous work conditions, work place harassment, and unfair treatment. The common denominator among such clients is that they are not members of a union. This factor makes me realize that labor unions still play an essential role in the American work place and are the prime defense against employee mistreatment. Leaving no room for doubt, the stories told around my dinner table exemplify the work that unions still do in America’s present day. Without unions my family and a majority of Americans would be lost.

More important and prevalent than even the stories my parents bring home from work is the stories of my grandfather who was an Alaskan truck-driver and a proud member of the teamster union. Although he passed away a few years ago his legacy lives on in his respect for a union that he was willing to sacrifice everything for. My mother can vividly recall the days that, as a family, they stood on the picket lines, striking against a company that refused to honor a contract they had previously promised. Whether it was the dead of an Alaskan winter or in the eternal sunlight of an Alaskan summer, my grandfather, mother, and father (who was my mother’s high-school sweetheart) stood outside these companies proclaiming the injuries that had been brought upon them. The union, strong in its support of my grandfather’s rights, was a guiding light in these times of darkness and was a fitting match to my grandfathers determined will and unyielding work ethic. Through-out his entire life my grandfather never doubted the union or any of the decisions they made. A deep appreciation for labor unions did not die with my grandfather and is carried on in my family’s spirit and body. During the entire strike of California’s grocery workers my mother never stepped foot across a picket line, the memories of her past too important to forget. To think of a world without unions would be a dishonor to my grandfather’s name and all those who came before him.

Labor unions are as necessary and useful as they were in the days they were established. If unions were eliminated disaster would befall the current working man and the world would recess to days reminiscent of Steinbeck’s novels. My grandfather always said that any organization that took such good care of him and his family deserved his respect, and that is exactly what he gave. This respect has remained a tradition in my family, a tradition that was forged in the Alaskan snow.

Emily Moberg

Emily Moberg's powerful essay about the importance of unions as seen through her family's eyes easily caught the attention of our scholarship committee. The MIT-bound high school senior from Media, PA is captain of her school's tennis team, and is incredibly active in her school and community. Ranked first in her class, she still has time to be a leader in school theatre, academic teams and won a local award for volunteering while working with her church's food center.

Emily's essay:

Once upon a time, seventy years ago, there was a young man who lived and worked in West Virginia. He worked in a coal mine, and every day he went down into the sulfurous mine, hoping that today would not be the day the shaft collapsed or that a gas explosion took him out of the workforce. He hated his job, but he had a job and that was all that mattered. Every night he would come back up from the mine, knowing the clothes he wore, the home in which he lived, everything he owned, the bed upon which he slept, all belonged to the company. Years later he would die of black lung disease, but not before he ensured that none of his sons would ever set foot in the mine he hated so much.

That was my great-grandfather.

I could imagine him standing at the edge of the mine, watching the canary going down to see if there was any oxygen in the mine, his mind filled with anger, yet powerless to rebel because he needed the work. He was a hero to me; he loved his family and sacrificed everything for them. He worked hard and saved his children from his own fate. He epitomizes the time when the welfare of workers was not given a second thought.

Unions provide countless benefits to workers and prevent their rights from being systematically eroded along with their wages as has occurred in times past. This is the first time in human history when the disparity between the privileged and the worker has not been insurmountable; we have come so far from the factory-age, from the Gilded Age, from slavery.

The problem is, detractors of unions are looking at the few problems they see in the system and not looking at the benefits. It is the same logic of anarchists; they see the few faults in the government and wish for its utter abolition, while failing to consider all the benefits they derive from it. For decades, the governments of the United States and Europe struggled to suppress unions, even at times using legislation intended to crush monopolies to prevent unionizing. Why? Because they are a powerful, potent force. Unions allow the small to take on the strong, allow the disenfranchised to challenge the empowered. So much of history is a tale of the aristocracy and the rich exploiting those who toiled by the work of their hands to support themselves; unions threatened to change that forever. Unions threaten the status quo because they allow the masses to speak on the same levels as the bourgeoisie. Take a look at the Gilded Age, the wealth of the monopolists J.P. Morgan and Rockefeller hiding the abject misery of their workers. Think of The Jungle—the conditions that prevailed in Chicago’s meatpacking industry when the workers had been stripped of all power to fight for themselves. Keeping one’s job was the only security. Each day, those miserable hours provided the subsistence on which his family lived. If he lost a limb, he was out of work, un-hirable, without aid. Another worker could replace him in an instant. No one dared be sick, for there would be no place when he came back. When unions finally fought and gained the right to be heard and to form, they managed to right these gross injustices. They fought for the basic rights and dignities of the workers. While the factory owners and bankers argued that the workers would cease to work and become lazy if given the representation of unions, they ignored the reality that those workers slaved for inhuman hours every day.

At this time, “Social Darwinism” was accepted; laissez-faire economics prevailed. The fact that some could oppress was accepted, because they were “the strong” and it was the travail of “the weak” to eke out an existence. This theory failed to take into account that the system itself oppressed those in the lower socio-economic tiers and did not give them an equal chance to succeed. In my European history class, we did a very interesting experiment. We were given beads and a trading schedule to mimic an economy. Once we had traded, the value of the beads was revealed and those with the most “money” were allowed to make the new rules. In each case, they made new rules to benefit themselves. The rest of the class was slowly rendered powerless, as our economic and political power was eroded by the powers that existed. We were in no way less capable than those in power; we were systematically disabled. This simple activity demonstrated that the natural trend is for the strong to exploit; the exploited can band together to fight back.

If we abandon unions now, we are abandoning the fight for equality and fairness in the workplace. We are allowing the system to slide inexorably back to the deplorable conditions of the past. Now, we are so far removed from those times that many do not recall the story of my great-grandfather, of many others’ grandfathers who suffered so greatly. Those people do not understand the protection the unions afford; they do not understand the situation to which the workforce could return.

However, even beyond ensuring that we never return to an age in which the factory or coal-mine owner is the ultimate arbiter, unions serve important functions for today’s workforce. They serve as a second family and support for their members. For example, my uncle was recently diagnosed with cancer and has undergone many intensive treatments of chemotherapy and surgeries. His union supported him above and beyond their call of duty, helping him receive treatment at the best hospitals, supporting his decisions to get a second opinion, standing up for him while he convalesced. Not once did I hear of a problem he had with his work throughout this ordeal; his union’s support allowed him to focus on combating his disease. I cannot say how glad it makes me that he had the freedom to seek treatment without hassle from his workplace, because now he is on the way to recovery.

Our country is built upon hard work. From the colonists’ landing here, those hundreds of years ago to now, we have cultivated the earth and built cities that touch the sky. We have built a country that is the best and brightest in the world. And it is the workers that make our country so strong. We are the base upon which this country is built. By banding together in unions, we can fight to keep our rights and wages in pace with our changing world and economy, just as the thirteen colonies once banded together to fight for our freedom.

Kyle Monette

Our scholarship committee was quite impressed with Kyle Monette's involvement in the community and excellent essay on Lewis Hine. A young activist, Kyle has been raising money for diabetes research and even helped with the introduction of a state bill to aid in the research. He will graduate from Mililani High School in Mililani, Hawaii and plans to attend the University of Hawaii.

Kyle Monette's Essay:

A leader who I admired the most who stood up for working families and labor unions was Lewis Hine. His photographs were significant in leading to the demise of the power of corporations by exposing inhumane working conditions for women and children and the growth of unions. Driven by profits and no regard for the health and safety of women and children, they offered nothing but poor wages, longer working hours, and no educational opportunities. Because women and children were viewed as a commodity and more manageable, cheaper to use and less likely to strike, employers used them in hazardous industries including mines, glass factories, canneries, textiles, etc. However, since labor unions were the only organizations defending the rights of women and children, Hine’s photographs help to elevate the importance of labor unions in defending the rights of all skilled and unskilled workers. His photographs also revealed an abusive and ugly side to corporate America that federal courts could not deny.

Lewis Hine began his career as a sociological photographer in 1906 for the National Child Labor Committee. Hine was so moved by the plight of working conditions for women and children in sweatshops that he gave up his teaching career and became an investigative reporter for the National Child Labor Committee. He often disguised his appearance to gain entry into many factories to photograph children (who took photographs that managers did not want the public to see) operating dangerous machines under little or no supervision. What he observed and photographed were children under the age of fourteen suffering from tuberculosis, bronchitis, mutilation, and death. Hine’s most haunting photos were in the dark tunnels and grimy breaker rooms of coal mines. He observed two boys under the age of twelve with their hands mutilated. On another investigation, he found two boys were smothered to death while working in a coal chute. In the glass blowing industry, he found that children had eye trouble, lung ailments and heat exhaustion from the open furnaces that reached temperatures as high as 130 degrees.

The power of photography was realized when newspapers and other media began to use photographs of child labor by Lewis Hine from 1908-1912 who expressed his outrage at what he saw as the exploitation of children.

One advantage of Hine’s photographs was the ability to offer evidence and authentication. The earlier illustrations and engravings of the nineteenth century were so crudely drawn that it was hard to credit them with much accuracy and trustworthiness. The majority of America believed that child labor wasn’t that big an issue, but the few that saw the problem like Hine were horrified. The use of photographs had a definite impact in altering public perceptions of women and child labor in the twentieth century. By publishing volumes of photos showing how children were being abused and deprived of an education, he created such a public outcry that politicians took notice. Mary Lynn Stevens commented about Hine’s famous Breaker Boys Photo and stated that the children staring out in magazines presented us with terrible contradictions to what we understood represented the definition of childhood. These children looked neither happy nor healthy. For others, these photographs represented a terrible state of affairs that could no longer be ignored in a civilized country like America.

When a fire broke out at the Triangle Shirtwaist Company in New York City in 1911, 150 women and children needlessly died as a result of the company’s lack of concern for their safety. When the fire swept through many of the upper floors of the building, workers were not able to escape or had to jump to their death because the safety exits were locked. These exits were secured because the company owners wanted to prevent the loss of goods by its workers. However, it was photographers like Hine who published photos of tragedies like these that aroused the public to take action and unite unions like the Ladies Waist and Dressmakers Union Local 25 and the United Hebrew Trades of New York against corporate America.

As a result of the work of photographers like Hine, more and more Americans saw that the only effective organizations to represent their interests, and safety and challenge big business over these issues were the unions and federations of unions. When hazardous working conditions were brought to the attention of the government, the interests of big business were represented at the expense of women and children. When unions asked their membership to strike over such issues as unsafe working conditions, poor wages, longer working days, etc. the federal government supported big business by sending in troops to break their strikes. Corporations were notorious in obtaining injunctions from the courts against unions and prevented them from organizing and forcing their workers back to work.

Although there were over 1500 laws limiting or prohibiting women and child labor throughout the states, they often did not apply to immigrants who worked long hours for low wages. Thus immigrants were the ones who ended up being exploited and living in slums with their families.