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.

Another banner crop of scholarship applications and essays were recently reviewed and AIS is proud to announce its 2009 scholarship winners. Our ad hoc scholarship committee met recently, read each essay, deliberated and argued till we reached consensus. "Each year it is an absolute pleasure to read the thoughtful, sometimes heartfelt and personal essays. My only regret is that we don't have tens of thousands of dollars to award as there are dozens of worthy applicants that deserve a scholarship," said Todd Iverson of America In Solidarity. Thanks to Iverson, Gail Ross, Mike Jagielski, and Mike and Kathy Collier for serving on this year's scholarship committee.

The winners are:

• Jocelyn Lam of Bothell, WA was awarded our top prize with a scholarship of $750. Jocelyn, a junior at the University of Washington, stood above everyone and wrote a brilliant essay about why Americans need health care reform now. She combined personal experience with amazing clarity that this is a matter of justice and argues its our moral responsibilty to fight for change.
• Jason Kingshott from Mt. Vernon, WA was awarded a $250 scholarship for his essay about the Employee Free Choice Act. The Washington State attendee talked about how EFCA would strengthen unions and ultimately America's middle class.
• Stephen Sachs from Greensburg, PA was also awarded a $250 scholarship. The civil engineering major at the University of Pittsburg wrote an excellent essay on health care and its impact on working families.
• Eric Scheer, a junior at the University of Washington from Seattle was awarded a $250 scholarship for his great essay on health care.
• Camille Dodson, also from Seattle and attending the U of W, won one of our two $250 Social Justice scholarships for her engaging work with the UW Dream Project that confronts inequality in those pursuing post-secondary education.
• Finally, the scholarship committee couldn't resist awarding a $250 scholarship to Amy McAuliffe of Pittsburgh, PA. Her essay on our trade policies was easily in the top 10 of the dozens submitted. But what caught the committee's attention was her work with the Pennsylvania Fair Trade Coaltion, Jobs With Justice and local labor council.

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.

2010 Scholarship

<!--[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]> <![endif]--><!--[if !mso]>

<![endif]-->America In Solidarity is offering scholarships to qualified high school seniors and current undergraduate college students. Total amounts given will be determined by the Scholarship Committee. AIS has awarded $16,600 in scholarships since 2005. 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. Winners will be chosen based on the merit of their essay, grades and activities .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. The scholarship committee would prefer materials be mailed in an 8.5x11-inch envelope.

 

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

1. Discuss the impact our current system of trade and trade agreements (NAFTA, WTO, etc.) has on America’s working families.
2. If you had ten minutes with President Obama to talk about the problems and solutions to America’s health care crisis, what would you tell him?
3. How could America’s economic policies be changed to help working families?
4. Discuss Harry Bridges’ influence on rank and file unionism.

 

Applications must be received by April 1, 2010 at our office at 3049 S. 36th St #205, Tacoma, WA 98409. We would prefer you include the contents in an 8.5 x 11 envelope.

 

 

2009 Ottilie Markholt Memorial Scholarship

America In Solidarity is offering scholarships to qualified high school seniors and current college students. Total amounts given will be determined by the Scholarship Committee. AIS has awarded $14,600 in scholarships since 2005. 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 May 1, 2009. 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. The scholarship committee would prefer materials be mailed in a 8.5x11-inch envelope.


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

1. How will the Employee Free Choice Act affect your family and/or your community?


2. Which current member of Congress has done the most to promote the issues of working families? Discuss how their actions or legislation has influenced your life and/or community.

3. Pick one of the following topics and argue why this is the most important issue for working families in 2009:

• Health Care reform
• Reexamining our trade policies
• Shifting our priorities from Iraq to rebuilding America

Scholarship applicants need to be mailed to:

America In Solidarity

Attn: Scholarship Committee

3049 S. 36th St #205

Tacoma, WA 98409

Privacy Policy: America In Solidarity does not sell nor share any of our Scholarship contact information. If you wish to receive automatic updates concerning our annual scholarship please sign up on our website. Please note you will also receive our newsletter as we do not have a separate list for scholarship only information.


 

2009 Scholarship Essays

Another banner crop of scholarship applications and essays were recently reviewed and AIS is proud to announce its 2009 scholarship winners. Our ad hoc scholarship committee met recently, read each essay, deliberated and argued till we reached consensus. "Each year it is an absolute pleasure to read the thoughtful, sometimes heartfelt and personal essays. My only regret is that we don't have tens of thousands of dollars to award as there are dozens of worthy applicants that deserve a scholarship," said Todd Iverson of America In Solidarity. Thanks to Iverson, Gail Ross, Mike Jagielski, and Mike and Kathy Collier for serving on this year's scholarship committee.

The winners are:

• Jocelyn Lam of Bothell, WA was awarded our top prize with a scholarship of $750. Jocelyn, a junior at the University of Washington, stood above everyone and wrote a brilliant essay about why Americans need health care reform now. She combined personal experience with amazing clarity that this is a matter of justice and argues its our moral responsibilty to fight for change.
• Jason Kingshott from Mt. Vernon, WA was awarded a $250 scholarship for his essay about the Employee Free Choice Act. The Washington State attendee talked about how EFCA would strengthen unions and ultimately America's middle class.
• Steven Sachs from Greensburg, PA was also awarded a $250 scholarship. The civil engineering major at the University of Pittsburg wrote an excellent essay on health care and its impact on working families.
• Eric Scheer, a junior at the University of Washington from Seattle was awarded a $250 scholarship for his great essay on health care.
• Camille Dodson, also from Seattle and attending the U of W, won one of our two $250 Social Justice scholarships for her engaging work with the UW Dream Project that confronts inequality in those pursuing post-secondary education.
• Finally, the scholarship committee couldn't resist awarding a $250 scholarship to Amy McAuliffe of Pittsburgh, PA. Her essay on our trade policies was easily in the top 10 of the dozens submitted. But what caught the committee's attention was her work with the Pennsylvania Fair Trade Coaltion, Jobs With Justice and local labor council.

Erik Scheer

Health Care Reform and the Working Family

 

            I recently saw a poll indicating that around 70% of Americans would be in favor of the government providing health care to those unable to afford it (03/27/09, NewsHour).  The funny thing was, this was a poll from 1937, during the height of the Great Depression.  Of course, the war came, and after it the new prosperity of the 1950s, and this concept never really reached its fruition.  But it never really died, either, and now as we enter more hard times, again with no definite end in sight, more and more regular, hardworking Americans, contributors to the fabric of our society if anyone is, face the grim prospect of having nowhere to turn in the event of an unexpected illness or injury.

 

 

            One of the most surprising things to me, something that I start to realize more and more as the economic crisis pushes the issue of health care into the media spotlight to an ever-greater extent, is that it’s not just the “poor people” of this nation that are affected by this issue.  I remember a time growing up when my family had health insurance, mainly due to the fact that I remember discussions about paying the bill.  When we lost it, it seemed like most of my friends still had it and took it for granted, and over the years I developed the idea that the reason my family didn’t was because we were in a lower income bracket than most of my friends from school.

 

 

            Something that becomes clearer as the economic crisis is pushed into the forefront of public and media attention is that increasingly it’s not just the poor or unemployed that cannot afford to cover themselves and their families.  Government programs to cover people who can’t afford health insurance are obviously a positive thing, providing coverage to people who would otherwise have no hope of getting it.  But somewhat ironically, they can end up leaving out hardworking people whose income is just a little too high, yet who are no closer to being able to afford health insurance than their poorer counterparts who receive it (at least in some capacity) for free.  These people, whether because they are self-employed or because their job doesn’t provide insurance, can find themselves in a terrible situation in the event of illness or injury – medical costs for the uninsured are astronomical: if they couldn’t afford insurance, how are they to afford these new, more burdensome costs, especially when it comes to long-term outpatient care or therapy?  Many Americans, not just in the lower but also and increasingly in the middle class, find themselves unable to get the medical care they absolutely need, let alone receiving regular checkups and other measures that promote a healthy lifestyle and may nip potentially serious health problems in the bud.

           

 

The cost of healthcare also impacts the workers of this country in a collective sense in terms of the toll health insurance costs can take on their employers.  The current plight of the “Big Three” is a prime example.  Certainly, other issues were at play in creating their shaky economic situation, but it is not helped by the enormous cost of providing health insurance to current and retired employees.  I think that in principle, it is an admirable thing for a company to take care of its own.  In fact, I think that someone who is employed by a company to which they make a valuable, even essential contribution is entitled to health coverage.  Many Americans now face the prospect of losing this coverage, and others face severe cutbacks in their coverage in the face of rising insurance costs.

 

 

            At the same time, if a company founders financially, some or all of its employees will find themselves out of a job.  At the core of the problem is not the current economic crisis or the “cheapness” of companies cutting back on employee benefits, or even the deficiencies of current government-provided low-income health insurance: the most central problem of American health care is the rising cost of private health insurance.  It is the system itself that is broken, not any of these facets of it, and this is where the issue of reform takes center stage.

 

 

            I believe that at their core, basic free-market concepts make sense.  But what incentive do the big healthcare providers have to cover people with pre-existing illnesses when their competitors do not? They’d lose money.  What incentive do they have to charge less when people will pay what they’re charging now?  None.  It is clear that something has to change – currently, huge companies reap gigantic profits by raising costs so high that many Americans are forced to give up their coverage.

 

 

I personally think that the role of the government in a capitalist society should not be just to stand back and let business have its way – such a model, in my eyes, is anti-capitalist, in that it ultimately leads to monopolization and the elimination of competition.  Competition is a key component in a successful capitalist economy.  If a merchant is charging two dollars for their product, someone else will start selling the same thing for a dollar, and the first person will either lower their price or lose customers.  The customer chooses, the merchant responds, the customer benefits by saving money, the merchant benefits by staying in business.  But in a completely unregulated system, what is to stop our two hypothetical merchants from getting together and selling their product for ten dollars and splitting the profits?  A monopoly has just been formed (albeit hypothetical).

 

 

The thing is, this is exactly what has happened with the private health insurance market in America.  Little companies “get together,” through corporate mergers, and what initially looks like “industry streamlining” leads to the situation we have today.  A few big companies control the market, they charge what they want, and the customer has no choice.  If they want insurance, these companies are the only people to go to.  Health care reform could take many shapes, but what is necessary is for some sort of real competition to arise.  Such an occurrence would not only drive prices down and benefit the consumer (in this case, the American people); it would also lead to real industry streamlining – companies would have a real reason to cut costs in ways other than providing poorer coverage for the same money.  Numerous suggestions have been put on the table as to where this change would come from, many with competing merits and potential problems, but one thing remains clear: something must change.

 

 

In my eyes, healthcare takes precedence over other issues affecting working families for a couple main reasons.  First of all, it is something that can prove to be absolutely, directly necessary for one to stay alive – there are working Americans that are literally dying of treatable diseases because they cannot afford insurance or medical attention.  Countless others experience a reduced quality of life due to illnesses or disabilities that they are forced to live with because they can’t afford to treat them.  No other issue that the federal government has the ability to impact so greatly has such a direct and tangible effect on one’s experience of life – just about everyone requires some form of medical attention at some point in their life, and today in this country, many hardworking people must either go without it or bankrupt themselves to get it.

 

 

The other reason this is such an important issue is that healthcare is increasingly becoming viewed as a basic human need, alongside food to eat, water to drink, safety from crime, and so on, doubtless for the aforementioned reasons.  It is also being treated as such by the government of just about every other developed nation in the world.  The key to being a great nation is not just to excel in technology and military strength, but also to maintain a well-educated, hardworking and healthy populace.  If other nations realize this fact and we, at the federal level, continue to ignore it, acting as if there’s nothing wrong with our current approach to healthcare, it will be to the detriment of the American people and our nation as a whole; after all, a nation is only as strong (or as healthy) as its people.  Healthcare reform needed if this country is to live up to the promise that working hard will be rewarded, at the very least, with a guarantee of access to the most basic necessities for a decent, dignified and healthy life.

 

Jocelyn Lam

Why Americans Need Health Care Reform Now
By Jocelyn Lam


Is health care a right or a privilege? This simple question has jarred in the mouths of politicians for years, and yet its answer seems so clear. Our current system points to the latter and yet our universal need for health care is tantamount to America’s ability to provide not only better health, but social justice. Above our struggling economy, trade policies, and the War on Terror is the real America – its people and workforce. In this view, health care reform is arguably the most important issue facing working families in 2009. The capacity of each individual to support his or her family and contribute to society is increasingly affected by the direct link between opportunity and health. In other words, there is a vicious cycle that exists: if you are sick then you cannot work, and if you cannot work then you cannot make money and obtain health insurance. From a moral perspective then, it becomes our responsibility to fight against large insurance companies to deliver the health care millions across America desperately need. This need for adequate coverage unites Americans throughout the country, whether one lives in a bustling urban center, a suburban hometown, or the rural countryside.
Today, more than ever working Americans are in dire need of health care reform. The current recession has led us into unprecedented tough times for Americans in terms of employment opportunities and access to health care. Its impact on the worker is further exacerbated by the country’s current system of health care. According to the Institute of Medicine, the United States is also the “only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure all citizens have coverage.”  In this country, health insurance can be obtained through an employer, through a government program like Medicare or Medicaid, or purchased from a private insurance company. The employer-subsidized method is by far the largest way most Americans receive their health insurance. Private purchase is the least common, and the government programs are limited to certain groups of eligible people. With the multi-billion dollar state budget deficit, many who rely on the government for their coverage are facing a potential risk of losing it. The Seattle Times recently released an article stating the senate’s proposed funding cuts would lead to the removal 45,000 people off health insurance.  These cuts would severely impact the state’s ability to provide coverage through Basic Health and would mean that many of the working poor would have to live without insurance. With the struggling economy and millions of layoffs across the nation, more and more Americans are losing their job each day and with their jobs go their means to health care as well. The United State’s Department of Labor’s Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) allows workers and their families who lose their health care benefits under certain circumstances such as loss of employment to continue their coverage.  However, the high cost of COBRA combined with low unemployment compensation makes this act unfeasible for recently laid-off workers. Imagine losing your job and having to choose between paying the expensive, unsubsidized insurance premiums in full offered by COBRA or paying for food and housing. It’s not much of a choice considering that most would sacrifice their immediate health care coverage in times when they’ve lost their only source of income.  
So when Americans don’t have health insurance what do they do when they become sick? For many, they put off health care until they become really sick and then find themselves in overcrowded emergency rooms across the country. Increasingly, hospitals are unable to meet the needs of their ER patients. With the recession, the government funding for public healthcare facilities is tight and now is not the time to cut funding but to promote reforms that will increase health care coverage. It is in the government’s interest to do so, as ER procedures and subsequent specialty visits cost the government significantly more money to treat conditions that could have been prevented by regular doctor’s visits. This is due to the higher cost of specialty care as opposed to primary care, and by creating the necessary reforms to implement universal health coverage and routine primary care we may, in fact, lessen the government’s debt as opposed to increasing it. This is precisely why health insurance is so important for working and previously working Americans today. The debate continues as to how the high cost of health care spending and current lack of access for millions of Americans can be comprehended and changed. What is certain is that on top of the stack of government mandates is the need for health care reform as the single most important issue facing working families today. This sentiment was expressed during the historical 2008 presidential campaign where according to a news article poll: “78% of voters say they want the next President to deal with health-care reform even if it means greater government debt, while 70% say health-care reform is more important than cutting taxes.”   
While funding for government-run health care programs are being cut and the resulting strain being felt in the emergency rooms of city and county hospitals, we must not forget the even greater impact in rural America. I had the opportunity once to travel to a small town in central Washington to learn about the health care challenges in providing rural medicine. Through an inside look at the functioning of a small community hospital and my interviews with the two doctors and two nurses who offered the only medical services within this town and within a sixty mile radius, I found the stark reality of health care in the rural sector hard to believe. Rural Americans have significantly less access to the sprawling health networks available in larger cities as well as to local medical providers. I witnessed the great need for primary care and the burden on the few primary care providers to alleviate the higher rates of disability, substance abuse, chronic diseases, and illiteracy present. Furthermore, the scarcity of physicians and health care workers is followed by inadequate funding and resources. With these serious obstacles to providing adequate health care, it is not surprising that it is here too that changes need to be made. According to a recent article published by the Center for Rural Affairs, the 60 million people living in rural America are the most in need of health care reform.  This statement is consistent with the increased rates of rural workers engaging in self-employment or running small businesses, which lack employer-provided health care benefits. As a result, many of those living rurally do not have health insurance nor have access to affordable coverage.  
Finally, I believe that promoting health care reform is a vehicle for social justice – health is a human right. Until we have found ourselves in the vicious cycle of sickness, unemployment, and lack of access to care can we begin understand that choosing to put food on the dinner table over purchasing health care insurance is no choice at all, especially when it comes down to things that are so intrinsically connected to our sense of well-being and quality of life. Universal access to health care should be a right that is enjoyed by all people living in America regardless of ability to work or pay costly premiums. Just north of our border, Canada has maintained a reputation as one of the world leaders in health and might perhaps be just the model for a universal, single-payer, and not-for-profit health care system. Perhaps it is time to turn to our neighbors and create a cohesive plan to insure all Americans.
In conclusion, no other issue is as important to our country at this time than health care reform. Not the Iraq war and the rebuilding of America or our trade policies but the health and well-being of the American people. Without healthy lives and health minds, we cannot begin to tackle the numerous other national concerns that compete for our attentions, problems that many of which carry additional pressures and predicaments outside of our control.  I hope that in this essay, I have provided some convincing reasons as to why health care reform is of utmost importance in this day and age. I have argued that our current system of private and employer-subsidized insurance is insufficient for providing health care in times when companies are strung tight and unemployment is skyrocketing. Additionally, federal and state budget deficits are making it increasingly hard to keep up the demands of health care in the emergency rooms of America, partly because of the postponing of care by the uninsured until their conditions reach urgent. Moreover, the public views health care reform as among the highest in national priorities since the 2008 presidential election and with such great public support, reform should be pursued. Finally, I have advocated health and access to health care as human rights and now is the time to begin realizing that.  

Steven Sachs

WHY HEALTH CARE REFORM IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR WORKING FAMILIES

Quality health care coverage, once taken for granted in the United States, has become the most important issue affecting working families.  Without healthcare reform, working families will find their jobs, their retirement, and their communities threatened.  This health care crisis has placed quality, affordable coverage out of reach for millions of Americans without regard to age, race, or employment status.  More than forty-seven million Americans do not currently have health insurance, and nearly nine million of those uninsured are children.  Those uninsured Americans represent more than fifteen percent of the United States’ population.  Those startling figures do not even take into account the nearly twenty-five percent of the American population that is underinsured.  Consumer Reports estimated in its September 2007 issue that forty percent of adults younger than sixty-five have no health coverage or inadequate coverage.  Health Affairs forecasters predict that the present figure of more than forty-seven million Americans without health care coverage could skyrocket to approximately fifty-six million without health insurance by 2013 if there is no change to the current trend.  The health care crisis in the United States, defined by these chilling statistics, is most certainly going to worsen as this great nation is facing one of its greatest economic crises since the Great Depression.
    Escalating costs for health care are leading to devastating consequences for working families in the United States.  During the past year, one in four Americans stated that their family had problems paying for medical care, and more than two-thirds of those who reported these problems had insurance.  Additionally, American families are delaying medical care at a rate of nearly thirty percent due to the exploding costs of health care.  Rising health care costs are estimated to cause half of the personal bankruptcies in the United States.  Nearly five million American families have filed for personal bankruptcy as a result of a serious medical problem.  These personal bankruptcies are not only affecting the uninsured or underinsured as one of my father’s coworkers who is employed as a utility worker with top of the line Blue Cross/Blue Shield insurance had to file personal bankruptcy because of bills associated with his wife’s catastrophic car accident.  Looking at that personal example makes it not hard to understand how every thirty seconds in the United States, an American family files for bankruptcy associated with medical costs.  Finally, the average American families’ health insurance coverage is more than twelve thousand dollars, and these premium costs are rising at three times the rate of the families’ wages or inflation.  In the face of grim statistics such as these, American families are also expected to absorb the cost of health care premiums of nearly twenty-four thousand dollars per year by 2016 unless changes to the health care system are implemented.
    The health care crisis in the United States is also having an adverse effect on American jobs.  As health care costs have increased in the United States, American employers have found it difficult to compete with foreign nations that offer universal health care to its citizens.  Additionally, union employees who benefit from health care coverage in their collective bargaining agreement are at a disadvantage in the competitive market when nonunion employers here in our nation and abroad do not offer health care benefits.  Sadly, unions which have set the standard for comprehensive health care benefits funded by employers are now having their jobs threatened by universal health care abroad and employers not providing health care here at home.  The Kaiser Foundation reported in its most recent benefits survey that the promise of health care benefits as part of one’s job benefit package is slowly disappearing.  The foundation reports that just sixty percent of firms presently offered health benefits, compared to sixty-nine percent in 2000.
    Unions in the United States have been fighting for health care benefits since shortly after World War II when big business in the United States defeated the inclusion of universal health care coverage as part of the Fair Deal package.  Since that time, American unions have fought year after year to improve employee health care benefits, and by doing so unions have raised the standard of living for all working Americans, union and nonunion.  Today, health care is a major issue in most negotiations, and it is becoming more difficult for union members to absorb the increased costs associated with health care.
    My dad’s job as the president of utility workers at a western Pennsylvania water and sewer employer represents a microcosm of the struggle employees have with rising health care costs.  Even though my dad completed negotiations on a five year contract over a year ago, he spends a large portion of his time dealing with his brothers’ and sisters’ problems associated with health care.  For example, he is currently preparing for two arbitrations directly dealing with prescription benefits.  In one case, the employer changed the members’ mandatory generic from a soft to a hard mandatory generic in the middle of a contract, costing the brothers and sisters hundreds of dollars in additional prescription costs.  The other case revolves around retirees’ prescription coverage and a disagreement between the employer and the union over the language that was agreed upon in negotiations.  Some of the problems he deals with as president of his local are not even employer generated, but they are brought about by changes made by the insurance provider.  As I work on this essay over Christmas break from the University of Pittsburgh, my dad has been receiving a large number of calls from the members concerning a policy implemented by the insurance provider to review medical tests and determine if they are medically necessary.  In most of these cases, an independent evaluation firm contracted by the insurance provider has denied CT scans to members because they deemed them medically unnecessary.
    As touched upon in the previous paragraph, retirees are also suffering as health care costs skyrocket exponentially.  Employer provided retiree health coverage is dwindling at an alarming rate in comparison to active employees.  The Kaiser Foundation’s annual benefits survey reports that only thirty-three percent of firms with two-hundred or more employees that offered health care benefits to employees also offered them to retirees.  In less than twenty years, the foundation reports that this percentage had dropped from sixty-six percent.  Additionally, only half the employers who provided retiree health care packages in 2000 are still providing those packages eight years later.  This decrease in retiree health benefits represents a fifty percent decrease in only eight short years.  With alarming statistics such as these, it is no wonder then that more than one-third of people surveyed who have health insurance worry about losing it. 
    The health care crisis in the United States is also having a detrimental effect on our communities as a whole.  Health insurance premiums for employer provided health care includes approximately one-thousand dollars that goes towards the cost of health care for the uninsured in the United States.  These higher premiums for people with health insurance cover about two-thirds of the medical costs of the uninsured, or about thirty billion.  The additional one-third of the tab for the uninsured, approximately fifteen billion, is picked up by the government through our tax dollars.  Our communities are also negatively affected by the lack of health insurance for our citizens.  Lack of health care coverage in the United States is directly attributed to approximately eighteen-thousand unnecessary deaths every year.  The reason for these community impacting deaths is that people without health insurance and people with inadequate health insurance are less likely to seek preventive care.  Statistics from the Institute of Medicine showed that insured women received mammograms at a rate of seventy-five percent, while the uninsured mammogram rate was forty-eight percent.  The rate for colon cancer testing was at fifty-six percent for those with health insurance, but the rate fell dramatically to eighteen percent for uninsured people.  When preventable or controllable diseases, such as diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and certain cancers, are not treated or caught early, they adversely impact the community as the illnesses become far more costly to treat.
    The scope of the health care crisis in the United States is reaching record proportions and is having an adverse effect on working families’ jobs, retirement prospects, and communities.  Working families in the United States are facing financial ruin as personal bankruptcies reach epidemic proportions because of rising health care costs.  American jobs are threatened as workers try to compete in a global market against those with universal health care and many without any health care coverage at all.  Our golden years do not look so golden any more as retirees are wondering when they will join many of their contemporaries and lose their health care coverage.  American communities have been ravaged by the health care crisis as the costs of the uninsured have substantially reduced the communities’ standard of living and placed added burdens on our medical systems.  The health care crisis in America has reached a critical point, but with the leadership of America’s unions who have set the standard for comprehensive health care benefits and raised the standard of living for all working families, it is not hopeless.  There will come a time in this great nation when no American goes without health care because of reforms spearheaded by American labor leaders cut in the mold of Ottilie Markholt.

2009 Social Justice Scholarship

America In Solidarity is offering 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 must have spent time volunteering or working in the areas of social justice, progressive politics, and/or the right to organize. Preference will be given to individuals who worked for organizations like America In Solidarity or directly on campaigns of progressive candidates. 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:

• An essay 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 like email, phone number and contact address.
  

Applications must be received by May 1, 2009 at our office at 3049 S. 36th St #205, Tacoma, WA 98409. We would prefer you include the contents in an 8.5 x 11 envelope.

Privacy Policy: America In Solidarity does not sell nor share any of our Scholarship contact information. If you wish to receive automatic updates concerning our annual scholarship please sign up on our website. Please note you will also receive our newsletter as we do not have a separate list for scholarship only information.

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

Privacy Policy: America In Solidarity does not sell nor share any of our Scholarship contact information. If you wish to receive automatic updates concerning our annual scholarship please sign up on our website. Please note you will also receive our newsletter as we do not have a separate list for scholarship only information.


 




 

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.    Because many of Hine’s photographs were of immigrant women and children, his photographs were also significant in forcing the public to look at these immigrants as individuals rather than as second class citizens.  

 

From an historical perspective in America and worldwide, Hine’s photographs along with union support had a direct impact on laws governing the employment of women and children. Because Hine worked for the National Child Labor Committee (NCLC) which was organized by citizens and politicians, his photos were introduced in Congress to enact the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 which prohibited child labor under the age of 16. However, no age limit was set for non-hazardous agricultural employment. On the international level, the NCLC pushed the International Labor Organization to adopt in 1919 two agreements- to fix the minimum age for admitting children into industrial employment and to prohibit night work for young children in various industries. With the help of the NCLC and the Children’s Bureau, Hine’s photographs and supporters were able to get attendance in schools to improve both nationally and abroad by stressing that working excessive hours caused children to be truant, perform poorly academically and were prepared poorly for survival in a changing economy. Hine’s efforts also helped in the creation of the Child Welfare League in 1921, the National Association of the Education of Young Children in 1926, a separate justice system for juveniles, child protection laws and even the spread of playgrounds in parks and schools.

 

Even in the twenty first century, photographs are still needed today as documents of truth and unions are needed to advocate for the safety and welfare of women and children.  My grandmother left her company after facing considerable ridicule by her superiors for trying to unionize her co-workers.  When members of her nursing department came to her to express their concern that their excessive workloads were jeopardizing the health and safety of their patients, they sought re-dress by seeking the help of unions to curb the abuses of management.   When my father tried to express his concern that health and safety of children under his care were being jeopardized, he faced considerable ridicule by his superiors for speaking out in the media and telling the truth. 

 

It can be said that Hine’s photographs provided authenticity to union claims that working families were being affected by profit and greed of corporate America.  Whereas it was learned that the camera could be manipulated, his photographs served as documents of truth that revealed emotions, and expressions of sadness, sorrow, disdain, perseverance, hope, illness, malnutrition, etc.. among women and children.   With corporations ignoring the consequences of their actions and the federal government abrogating its responsibility to represent the interests of its citizens, it was left to the photographers like Hine and unions to hold corporate executives to account.  Together it was their unified efforts that “exerted the force to right wrongs” and speak as the lone voice of millions of defenseless women and children.

 

Lila Zucker

America needs labor unions like fish need water

America still needs labor unions because workers are still being intimidated,attacked and pushed down by employers and the current economic status of our country. Despite the development of the National Labor Relations Act in 1935 the laws created to protect workers are not strong enough. Our country has labor laws, as does the United Nations, but they are not enforced as well as they should be. Legislation such as the Employee Free Choice Act, which makes it easier for employees to join unions,speeds up the process for creating unions and increases penalties for employers who violate worker's rights, can help to change this. Without decent standards of living and working for employees, the standard of living for all will continue to drop. Labor unions have been an essential part of our country's history, from the inclusive origins of the Industrial Workers of the World(IWW) and the Knights of Labor helping to organize and protect non-white workers to the mobilization of the current labor movement against outsourcing and globalization.

 

America still needs labor unions because the laws designed to protect workers in the workplace do not adequately protect workers. When I worked with the workers at the Three Mile Canyon Dairy in Oregon I saw firsthand how workers are still fired for trying to organize a union at their workplace. The right to collective bargaining is a basic right that no one should be denied. They wanted a union because the dairy where they worked sprayed unsafe chemicals which made the workers sick and because the workers were not given reasonable pay or healthcare. None of these things are unreasonable requests, they are basic things that every worker needs. Their protests of working conditions fell upon the deaf ears of the management. Our country still needs labor unions because when these workers won a contract with the United Farm Workers(UFW) their working conditions improved and workers were no longer fired for talking about unions.

 

There are so many situations when workers are forced to work in conditions which are unsafe, unhealthy and ultimately unfair. Two other campaigns I worked on were the struggle of the employees at the Parry Center for Children in Portland and that of the Providence workers at Providence Hospital. In both of these situations the staffing ratios was so unsafe that the turnover rate at these facilities was sky high. At the Parry Center the staffers who worked there were required to at least have their Masters degrees yet they were paid less then $10 an hour and the staffing ratios to patients was so high that employees felt unsafe among the physically and emotionally unstable patients they cared for. Once again the demands of individual workers was ignored by the management. Because they went through a long struggle to become part of a union they were able to stand together as a strong group and in one voice say they deserved better. Because they were part of a union they could go on strike and stay strong on the picket line until the management gave in to their demands. This is one case of  just how much power a union can have in achieving it's goals and improving the jobs of many people.

 

Labor unions have always been a part of our American history and they represent the American Dream: the ability to have fair access to moving up in life, having the means to take care of your family, and job security.  In addition to these things unions have always helped to provide, they also help to secure good wages and benefits in an economy that is increasingly destructive to the working class. Decreases in wages and in good paying, union jobs with benefits are some of the reasons full time employees cannot provide decent standards of living for their families. Because increasing numbers of jobs are being sent overseas, workers are forced to take lower paying jobs which often do not include healthcare benefits. If wages were at the same rate as they were in 1968, in real money they would be over $10 an hour. But instead they are decreasing; the minimum wage is not a living wage. These are all changes in our economy that have made unions even more important because they are the only means by which workers can protect their livelihoods and families.

 

Union density has dropped,partially because large businesses are now more able to hire union busters who try to break and stop unions. In addition, the number of industry jobs have gone down, and these were historically union jobs. Unions are one way to provide adequately for workers, and organizing union membership can greatly help to raise the number of employees at this standard. The security in benefits, such as health care and overtime as well as decent wages and hours that come with union jobs allow for members to better provide for their families. The wages of union members are 27 percent higher then those of non-union employees. Non-union members who are paid the minimum wage, or even a little bit higher, with few benefits still struggle to make ends meet.

 

Unions are important not only because the make lives better for those within but they also push to make life better for those not yet in unions. As more and more businesses become unionized the other businesses in the sector must also raise their wages and benefits to meet these same standards because these things create fierce competition in the job market. When labor unions offer employees higher wages or benefits they create a competition in which everyone wins because when the workers have better pay and healthcare they will put the money back in to the local economy, thereby helping everyone out. When workers have healthcare that adequately covers them they will get healthcare when they need it and no wrack up huge hospital bills when they are forced to use the emergency room. When workers are paid living wages they will be able to care for their families, put time and money into their local communities and schools. All of these things help out the society as a whole. Although it is possible to have higher wages and good healthcare without a union, a union is the best way to guarantee that these benefits continue.


Although the benefits are an important part of what it means to be part of a union another big issue is the treatment of employees in the workplace. When employees join a union there is a larger force that can speak to the management when various types of harassment occur on the job. Many factors have led to decreased sexual harassment in the workplace, one of which is the formation of unions. Many union contracts include clauses about these issues and make it harder for culprits to go unpunished when such things happen.

 

Through my work with Jobs with Justice I have seen how important unions are to so many people. I have seen how belonging to a union can be a life or death choice when safety is the issue. I have seen how families have suffered during campaigns to form a union and how they feel the the union is so important the sacrifices have been made because they know that in the end, their lives will improve as a result of the union. Because so many workers are willing to risk so much to form a union there must be something right about them. These workers are willing to risk it because being part of a union means power, it means the power to speak so that the management will listen, it means the power to have wages, hours and benefits that work for them; it means the power to do raise up the standards for other workers so that all workers have these same benefits.

Roy Scranton

Roy Scranton's powerful essay on why America still needs labor unions stood out as he argued that our democracy is at stake without the presence of unions. Roy is working toward his BA in Liberal Arts at New York's New School University where he plans to further his education by pursuing a PhD. Originally from Oregon, he has spent the last ten years doing such varied things as protesting the World Trade Organization and serving as an American soldier in the occupation of Iraq.

Roy Scranton's Essay:

America Needs Unions Now

Looking into the 21^st century, we face tremendous challenges across the entire spectrum of human endeavor.  Global warming, resource depletion, international terrorism and nuclear proliferation are just a few of these challenges.  More importantly, our ability to handle these problems, our democratic power as self-determining citizens, has slipped through our fingers—the reins of power have been taken from us by transnational corporations and conglomerates whose only interests are more profits and more power.  They choose who we’re allowed to elect, they decide what issues the media calls relevant, and moreover, they set our wages, hours and conditions of labor.  If we don’t like it, they move our jobs overseas.  As individuals, as Joe Barista and Sally Shelf-stocker, Mike Plumber, Gary Teacher and Jane Accounts Clerk, we have no power.  We simply cannot individually resist the imposition of corporate rule.  Individually, all we can do is vote in the elections and gripe about health care.  Individually, we’re doomed. 

The good news is that we’re not individuals.  We’re not atoms bouncing around some abstract system.  In fact, we are the system.  We’re industry.  We’re transportation.  We’re service.  We’re the people who run the machine, not the CEOs who make 300 times our yearly wages, not the politicians they put up for vote, not the talking heads in the media, and we have tremendous power to determine our economic and political futures, power that can only be tapped through solidarity—in unions.

            Three main issues facing America today, all related to the concerns addressed above, demand stronger unions.  First of all, the American middle class is being squeezed out.  Inequitable and unfair wealth distribution is making the rich richer, the poor poorer, and wiping out the middle class entirely.  This is fundamentally warping the economic shape of the nation and killing the American dream.  The middle class has long been the heart of America, and the American dream is founded on the idea that anyone and everyone can climb into the middle class from whatever lowly origins.  A strong middle class, through economic self-determination, investment, savings and purchasing power, makes for a robust economy.  As well, through having a stake in the system, through education, through a concern for the future and through the leisure time their wealth affords, the middle class make democracy work, forcing it to respond to the needs of the people.  What’s happening now is that the downwardly mobile middle classes find themselves with less time than ever, working more and more, and as days go by they have little energy to devote to democracy, little time to insist on their political and economic rights.  The rapacious and power-hungry take advantage of their distraction and steal a little more, swindle a little more, write another bad law, and suddenly the downwardly mobile find themselves no longer mobile but just plain down.  Through unions, through the political power of solidarity, workers can insist on fair wages, demand better distribution of wealth in and through industry rather than through government, and not only slow the middle class’ disappearance, but bring it back and even make it stronger.     

Second, corporations based in America are behaving today with greater and greater irresponsibility both at home and overseas, destroying our world and ripping off consumers, workers and shareholders all.  Through environmental depredations, violations of workers rights, gross fraud and malfeasance, war-profiteering and gouging consumers, corporations have shown again and again that they cannot behave responsibly without strict oversight.  As consumers, we may urge a boycott of this product or “choose” a competitor, but the fact is we have little power.  In a globalized economy, local action means less and less.  Transnational companies don’t have to worry about the repercussions of their behavior in one town, one state, one country even, because they make enough profits globally to offset local damage, and there’s nothing consumers can do about it.  As workers, however, joined together nationally across a spectrum of service, production, clerical and technology industries, perhaps even joined internationally with other workers in other nations, we have tremendous, titanic power.  Through union bargaining, strikes, general strikes and political work the power of unions can hold corporations accountable, ensure laws are enforced, and counteract the baleful influence of corporate PAC money.    

Lastly, American democracy is dying.  Our republican values are eroding every day as we become more and more disenfranchised and estranged from our government.  In spite of the rhetoric declaring recent Democratic Party victories to express the voice of the people, American politics has for most Americans long ago descended to the level of pure spectacle, barely even news, with a vote once ever four years (if even that) forming the only meaningful method of participation.  Thoughtful and intelligent young people get their politics from a comedy show, while working families are preyed upon by fear-mongers spreading vitriol, hate, and snake-oil, and behind it all, our leaders and representatives lie, cheat and steal with the most flagrant disrespect for any kind of civic duty or statesmanship, much less public decency and integrity.  A democracy, it is said, gets the government it deserves.  Yet people want something better.  People want to do more.  Many voices are clamoring to be heard.  Blocked from public discourse, prevented even from organizing their labor, public struggle spills into the blogosphere, onto private web-pages, into ad-hoc protests and general malaise, but frustrated anger can only build so long before it sours to bitter cynicism—or explodes.  Through unions, through working together as economic and political agents, we can revitalize American democracy and save the dream of our promise from fading into distant memory.   

What is at stake is the very future of the nation, at home and abroad.  Will America become once again a proud republic, ruled by a free, middle class citizenry, of, by and for the people, or will America continue the path it now treads, into Empire, economic tyranny and disaffection, into a police state populated by prisoners of consumption, concerned only with their own comfort and entertainment?  We must affirm our identity as workers, as American workers, and band together against the plutocrats who have commandeered our lives and very dreams.  Only in solidarity—in unions—do working families have the economic and political power to ensure their rights.  The power we gain in solidarity, in stronger unions and more unions, would help preserve the middle class, hold corporations accountable and save democracy.  Without strong action in economic and political solidarity, all we have to look forward to is the further erosion of our rights, loss of national pride, economic instability and the abandonment of our democratic traditions.  Now more than ever we must rise up and protect what’s ours.  America needs unions now.

 

Sarah Brown

Sarah's Essay:

Why America Still Needs Labor Unions

 

My dad’s union helped save my life, and more. Unions can do the same for others, and that is why America still needs labor unions.

 

I am a ballet dancer. In May, 2001 when I was eleven, I developed pain in my knee. My mother took me to the doctor. After examination, the conclusion was that my pain was related to the dance practice, or from simply growing too fast. I danced all summer in an intensive dance school program.

 

Three months later, in August, my family and I were traveling to Chicago when the pain turned into a huge molten swelling, so bad I couldn’t walk or bare the pain in any position. Upon arrival, my mother took me to the emergency room of a Chicago hospital, where the in initial diagnosis was bone cancer. An MRI the next day revealed the equally life-threatening bone infection, osteomyelitis. I had the finest pediatric orthopedic surgeon as my doctor, who drained the bone.

 

I was in Chicago Children’s Hospital for six days, where the best pediatric infectious disease specialist prepared a plan to combat the infection. A PIC line was inserted to my heart for intravenous antibiotics. I was given these for six weeks. After I went home, I took oral antibiotics for six months. Recently I had another MRI for a dance related injury which revealed that the bone was completely healed – the doctor said he could not even see where the bone had been cut away to let the infection drain. Throughout this whole painful and frightening ordeal, we never worried about money to pay for my treatment; we were able to focus all of our attention on my recovery from a life-threatening disease.

In 2000, my dad’s union negotiated an agreement with his employer to allow the union to establish its own health benefits trust. My dad was elected the first chair of the Trust Board, and continues as Trust Board chair to the present.

According to my dad, his union Health Trust has been able to deliver more benefits, at better prices, to the union’s members and families, than the employer had been able to do previously. And, as indicated, the Health Trust has also been a big benefit to me personally.
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->

I also have asthma. I appreciate the ability of the Health Trust to help provide medicine to help me maintain my condition at a reasonable cost to my parents.
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->

America’s unions are working to do more to provide health care benefits for their members. For over 15 months, many unions supported the independent, nonpartisan Citizens’ Health Care Working Group which held public meetings throughout the United States about the health care system and how Americans want it changed. Based on the comments, the Citizens’ Working Group sent recommendations to the Congress and the President on September 29, 2006.

 

This is a time of crisis for our nation’s health care system. According to the Health Care Working Group’s report, the United States spends nearly two trillion dollars on health each year. The Group developed recommendations which included: 1. Establish public policy that all Americans have affordable health care; 2. Guarantee financial protection against very high health care costs; 3. Foster innovative integrated community health networks; 4. Define core benefits and services for all Americans; 5. Promote efforts to improve quality of care and efficiency; and, 6. Fundamentally restructure the way end-of-life services are financed and provided.

Health care costs are rising faster than union members’ pay, and the issue of health coverage has been the most important issue in nearly every contract union Locals have bargained all over the country in recent years. As suggested in the Working Group’s report, health care costs are continuing to rise much faster than the members’ ability to pay for those costs. The result has been that union members are being denied wage increases just to keep their health benefits.

America’s unions are working to help achieve health care reform in America. Although most people can get health benefits at work, not every employer provides an affordable health care plan.  America’s unions are supporting candidates and elected officials who are taking the lead on health care reform and who are trying to stop cost shifting to governments and to working people.

Because of my dad’s involvement with his union, I have seen first-hand how much unions have invested on behalf of its members. Twice my dad was elected as a delegate to a national political convention. Both times his union paid my dad’s expenses to attend. During the second convention, I was able to obtain a guest pass and go into the convention hall with him. I observed first-hand the convention speeches and floor debate as well as convention voting. I then wrote an article about the convention, which was published in my home-town newspaper.
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->

Unions have taken the lead in negotiating wages, hours and working conditions for public employees in my home state. Unions are able to help protect my dad and his coworkers from arbitrary actions by administration officials. Unions are also able to provide good advice and help its members avoid unreasonable consequences of decisions made during the course of changes in administrations.

In summary, I know from personal experience that unions are able to help keep access to good health care benefits and maintain a reasonable standard of living. Unions are able to offer families wonderful opportunities to develop leadership skills, and to learn about our country and its leaders. In some respects, America’s unions can provide the same opportunities for all union members.

America’s unions have consistently showed strength and determination to improve the lives their members and of all Americans. America’s union members should be proud of the fact that they are part of a national movement that is leading the fight for health care reform and for equal opportunities for all our nation’s citizens.

 

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

Joaquin Recinos, Los Angeles, CA

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.

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.

 

Sivan Ben-David

Several years ago my father lost his job. Raising a family in this day and age is extremely expensive, and even short-term unemployment has huge impacts and can be traumatic. As a result of the WTO agreements many jobs are being outsourced so that companies can save by paying lower wages internationally. This greatly impacts many jobs, including my dad’s. As companies can hire workers globally the need for workers has decreased. This made it increasingly hard for my father to find work. Although my father, thankfully, is currently working, he says the topic of jobs being outsourced is a weekly conversation at work. Even when jobs aren’t outsourced, specific parts of products are produced globally for cheaper prices. Unemployment and lower wages for American jobs are the beginning of a chain reaction. As unemployment and lower wages increase, people spend less, companies can’t sell products and the economy declines.

The World Trade Organization (WTO) focuses on trade and commerce issues around the world with the main objective of reducing tariffs and barriers to trade. The WTO holds huge enforcement power and can impose trade sanctions against any other countries that they perceive to have breached rules. The WTO membership includes over 151 countries and influences over 90 percent of international trade. Taking a closer look into the WTO though, can give insight to the negative effects, specifically on American working families. The WTO undermines democracy, disregards environmental issues, and further impoverishes the poor, while benefiting the rich. To ensure the economic health of America, the issues and problems of the WTO must be taken into account immediately.

            One of the largest defects of the WTO is the secrecy in which they run, and the way they shut the voices of Americans out of the process. “WTO lacks democratic accountability, in that its hearings on trade disputes are closed to the public and the media”<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[1]<!--[endif]-->. In doing so, the WTO creates a system that can lead to corruption. Officials do not have to report back to the public until the agreement is already made. What goes on in the meetings is not transparent but rather concealed. The average working American has no voice. Although the U.S. negotiators consult with advisory committees that are not composed of government members, the flaw in this is that most advisory committees are made up of corporate lobbyists. “Labor unions and environmental groups have only token representation, while family farm, consumer, health, and other citizens groups are completely shut out”². Worker’s rights was placed on the agenda of the WTO but was wiped out, as it was said to be a trade barrier of low-income countries. The WTO claims almost anything benefiting the people to be a trade impediment, such as higher standards for health and food safety.  “The shift in power to a global-level bureaucracy undermines one of the cornerstones of democracy—the practice of citizens working with public officials to develop laws that protect the public welfare.”<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[2]<!--[endif]--> The WTO keeps proving to the working family how big corporations benefit from the agreements made under the WTO while small business, farmers, and other workers are suffering from the effects.

            The few that benefit from the WTO trade agreements use statistics to show that the WTO is benefiting the working class. Statistics show that the “volume of food trade is up”³, but the problem with this is that both “farmers in rich and poor countries see their income decline, with many losing their farms and livelihoods while consumer food prices have not fallen.”<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[3]<!--[endif]--> Unemployment has gone up, while many jobs have been lost, proving how the WTO has not been to the advantage of the working class. “U.S. export growth between 1994 and 2000 created an estimated 2.7 million jobs, but faster import growth eliminated 5.8 million, creating a net loss of three million jobs”<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[4]<!--[endif]-->. And the jobs that the WTO did create were not high ranked jobs as promised. Instead manufacturing jobs have declined while service-sector jobs have significantly risen.  Wages meanwhile have dropped significantly.  Companies make more money by hiring professionals, such as doctors, engineers, and other high ranked jobs, internationally rather than within. They outsource these jobs, and can pay employers less in other countries for the same amount of work. This is not only a problem for those whose jobs have been outsourced to other countries but for people who still hold these jobs here. Unions have lost their bargaining power dramatically. With the larger global supply of workers companies can easily fire and exploit American workers. This makes workers and workers unions lose power. Meanwhile the U.S. “trade deficit went from $97 billion in 1994 to $436 billion in 2002”⁴ which “continues to limit economic growth at home”⁴. All of this is changing the income inequality in America for the worse. “The globalization era of the 1990s has brought greater inequality, with the bottom fifth stagnating while the top fifth continued to increase its share of total income. While median family income increased by approximately 0.5% a year through the 1990s, U.S. corporate profits were up 88% and corporate CEO pay rose by 463%”⁴. The WTO further impoverishes the poor, empowers the rich, and is leading to the downfall of American working class.

            Under the WTO the NAFTA and CAFTA agreements have been made. NAFTA was an agreement to eliminate tariff barriers on agricultural trade and investments between Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. CAFTA was an agreement incorporating Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rich, Nicaragua, and El Salvador. Passing the CAFTA agreement raised much controversy in congress, and it passed by only one vote in the House of Representatives.  The provisions of the NAFTA and CAFTA “grant foreign investors a remarkable set of new rights and privileges that promote relocation abroad of factories and jobs and the privatization and deregulation of essential services”<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[5]<!--[endif]-->. As companies relocate to other countries, where they can pay employees lower wages, Americans begin to lose not only their jobs, but their ability to bargain with their employer as well. The average American is suffering. “Farm income has declined, and consumer prices have risen while some agribusinesses -- which lobbied hard for NAFTA and now are avidly promoting its expansion -- have seen record profits.”<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[6]<!--[endif]--> The farmer in the U.S. has to adhere to paying workers certain wages, adhere to certain health regulations and adhere to the use of only certain types of pesticides. Since a farmer, for example in Mexico, would not have to adhere to these restrictions, it makes it harder for a U.S. farmer to compete. While exports have increased, the imports have increased even more. This gives America an overall net loss. Farmers are not the only ones losing jobs though, many other jobs are being taken away by the NAFTA and CAFTA agreement, and the replacement for these jobs are low end jobs. “The Department of Labor has certified that well over half a million U.S. workers lost their jobs due to NAFTA, and the nonprofit Economic Policy Institute (EPI) estimates the skyrocketing NAFTA trade deficit contributed to the loss of more than 1 million jobs and job opportunities”<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[7]<!--[endif]-->. The lost jobs have been replaced with lower wages and less skilled jobs. “AFL-CIO Policy Director Thea Lee noted that “rather than encouraging sustainable and equitable growth, NAFTA has contributed to the loss of jobs and incomes of workers, while enriching the very few.”⁷ To ensure a better future for America working families the NAFTA and CAFTA agreements must be reconsidered.

            In order to ensure the stability of our nation, make certain that the gap between the rich and poor will not widen, and guarantee the safety of American jobs, measures must be taken. The United States should take key action in order to ensure that the WTO benefits everyone. In order for this to happen the WTO needs to be more transparent, in that it releases documents faster to the public, the meetings are not held in secrecy, and nongovernmental groups should be able to observe the WTO meetings. By doing so it will ensure that corruption does not take place, and restore faith. Furthermore, the WTO needs to respect workers around the nation. Small business, and farms need to be protected as well. Wages, and high standards that are employed by American workers, should be employed by workers elsewhere. If agriculture comes from different countries such as Mexico, the agricultural standards used to grow it here should be the same there to ensure fair competition and safety. There needs to be laws set, to protect jobs here from being outsourced, and ensure that unions and workers receive the same benefits and bargaining rights as previously. New rules and procedures that protect the American working people, and our way of life need to be put at the top of the agenda, to ensure the safety and security of our grand nation.

<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->




---

<!--[endif]-->

<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[1]<!--[endif]--> "Profile: World Trade Organization." BBC. 19 Dec. 2007. BBC NEWS. Feb.-Mar. 2008 <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/country_profiles/2429503.stm>. 

<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[2]<!--[endif]--> Anderson, Sarah, and John  Cavanagh. "World Trade Organization." Foreign Policy in Focus. Jan. 1997. Institute for Policy Studies. Feb.-Mar. 2008 <http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol2/v2n14wto.html>. 

<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[3]<!--[endif]--> "WTO and Agriculture and Food Safety." Public Citizen. Feb.-Mar. 2008 <http://www.citizen.org/trade/wto/agriculture/>.

<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[4]<!--[endif]--> Wallach, Lori, and Patrick Woodall. "For Richer or Poorer: Facts and Fiction About Trade and Economic Gains in the Developed World and Economic Results of the WTO in the U.S." Public Citizen. Feb.-Mar. 2008 <http://www.citizen.org/trade/wto/articles.cfm?ID=10443>.

<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[5]<!--[endif]--> "North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)." Public Citizen. Feb.-Mar. 2008 <http://www.citizen.org/trade/nafta/>.

<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[6]<!--[endif]--> "NAFTA, Farmers and Agriculture." Public Citizen. Feb.-Mar. 2008 <http://www.citizen.org/trade/nafta/agriculture/>.

<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[7]<!--[endif]--> Parks, James. "NAFTA, CAFTA Not Working." AFL-CIONow News Blog. 12 Sept. 2006. Feb.-Mar. 2008 <http://blog.aflcio.org/2006/09/12/nafta-cafta-not-working/>.

 

2006 Winning Essays

Over 200 applications were received for the 2006 Ottilie Markholt Memorial Scholarship. The quality of the essays and applications were incredible and the committee had a difficult time determining the winners. We have posted many of their essays on the site, merely click on their name to read the essay.

A special thanks to the following people who served on the scholarship committee: Jeff Ricardson, Brianna Richardson, Sarah Miller, Mike Jagielski, Ryan Mello, Gail Ross and Todd Iverson. This year’s winners are:

 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

Privacy Policy: America In Solidarity does not sell nor share any of our Scholarship contact information. If you wish to receive automatic updates concerning our annual scholarship please sign up on our website. Please note you will also receive our newsletter as we do not have a separate list for scholarship only information.

Anthony Tse's Essay

Why America Still Needs Labor Unions
 

Labor unions have long played an integral part of our nation’s development and individual quest for freedom.  Carpenters disguised themselves as Mohawk Indians and “hosted” the Boston Tea Party in 1773 during our struggle for independence from England.  The Continental Congress met at the Carpenters Hall in Philadelphia and the Declaration of Independence was signed there in 1776. 

 

American labor unions have helped build a more prosperous and egalitarian society throughout the history of our country.  The National Labor Relations Act  (NLRA) of 1935 guaranteed working Americans the right to organize without fear of reprisal and to bargain with their employers for better wages, benefits and working conditions.  Labor unions were promoted by the federal government as necessary institutions in an industrialized democracy to help workers join together to resist corporate mistreatment, raise their wages and restore the worker’s role in America’s economic, social and political life after the frightening experience of the Great Depression.  Union leaders were consulted and their reactions to policy changes were reported in the news as a matter of course.

 

With the changes to the National Labor Relations Act in 1946, inconsistent enforcement of the labor laws and highly paid anti-labor corporate advisors, union bashing was turned into a national sport by the late 1970’s.  The American family’s budget was beleaguered by high inflation rates while the United States government battled a stagnant economy and national industries struggled to compete in the international marketplace.   Conservative government leaders gave tacit approval of corporate resistance to labor organization.  Since then, American workers who exercised their rights to peaceful assembly, to form and to join unions have been routinely harassed with threats of company shutdowns, layoffs or pay cuts. The fear generated by the increased homelessness around us during the last economic downturn, the potential loss of health benefits for families in the time of skyrocketing costs, and the unprecedented high rate of unemployment across all types of industries silenced the American workforce and union membership decreased further.

 

As the United States moved from being primarily an industrial nation to an information society, it has been questioned whether there is still a need for labor unions.  Employers claim they have been successful in keeping their businesses union free by giving workers more of a voice in their work environments.  Many companies have implemented profit sharing plans that allow more employees to share in the rewards of their efforts.  In the year 2000, a poll taken by the Scripps Howard Data Center of a sample of one thousand adult Texans found 81% of Texans satisfied with their jobs, but 60% responded that workers still need labor unions to protect their rights. 

 

 

For a more personal review of some of the issues that working families currently face, I learned from my parents that there has probably never been a better time to restore our nation’s earlier commitment to collective bargaining in the workplace.  My dad lost his job in 1999 after his company closed down and moved their headquarters to a different city after workers there tried to organize a union.  The workers had voted down the union after the company promised them significant improvements in their working conditions.  Shortly after the vote was taken, the company moved to Texas, a right-to-work state, where employees do not have to belong to a union to fill certain jobs.  The promised changes were never implemented.

 

My mom became the target of  “mobbing” or systematic harassment by management over an extended period of time to force her out of the workplace through intimidation last year.  She consulted with an employment attorney who advised that unless discrimination on the basis of age, gender, race, religion, disability, pregnancy or national origin could be proven that mistreatment of employees, no matter how egregious, is not illegal in the United States.  Having faced this company before, he laughed and told her that she did not need an attorney, that she and her co-workers needed a union.  War torn from ten months of trying to save her job, acutely aware of what had happened to hopeful union organizers at my dad’s company, and with a son ready to graduate and go to college, my mom was not willing to risk the potential consequences of this sage advice.  To this day, she still has not recuperated from the physically depleting and mentally traumatizing effects of this corporate nightmare.

 

In addition to these personal insights as to the ongoing need for protection of workers from the unchecked excesses of corporate America, news reports frequently cite statistics as to how national wage rates have not kept up with the skyrocketing cost of health care.  Organized labor has historically negotiated better salary increases and benefits for their members than employees have received from the employer directly.  According to US Department of Labor Bureau statistics, union women earn 39% more than their non-union counterparts.  The union premium for Latino workers is 54 % and 45% for African Americans.  Union members are also more likely to have health insurance, pension plans and paid vacations which help them protect their family’s quality of life.

 

Safe work environments also continue to be a concern for workers in many different industries.  Organized labor support has been integral to help pass federal legislation governing minimum safety standards in the workplace protecting the physical and mental well being of their members.  The political strength of organized labor speaks much louder to legislators than the lone voice of one constituent.   

 

Historically, unions have also provided essential job training that helps members improve their skills thereby promoting a high level of American workmanship in the competitive international marketplace.  In addition, unions often have referral services matching skilled workers with job opportunities benefiting the employer and the member both.

In order to help revitalize the American labor movement, labor unions could focus recruitment on women, minority and young workers.  These groups have traditionally been employed in low paying, semi skilled jobs and have been long ignored by unions that were traditionally dominated by white male factory workers.  To attract new membership from these groups, unions could schedule meetings during lunch while children are in school or daycare.  Minority or immigrant workers would be more attracted to union membership if their representatives looked like them, spoke their language and understood their culture.  

Union organizers could also focus membership drives on industries where no effective labor representation system existed yet such as the technology or service industries.  The widespread economic hardships resulting from the “09-11” tragedy in 2001, changed the way that many employers were able to do business.  There is little loyalty between many companies and even their long-term employees.  Many loyal workers faced layoffs for the first time and the remaining workers were left with increased responsibilities to be performed in less time.  With the advent of performance environments similar to the production quotas of manufacturing industries, well-educated office professionals are  seeking alternative ways to effectively voice their common concerns to management in order to mutually improve the company’s profitability without losing their jobs. 

Workplace violence threatens employee safety and is becoming a critical issue nationwide.  Organized labor’s political clout could encourage the passage of legislation that would  protect workers’ physical and mental health from toxic managerial styles and insure basic respect for all in the workplace.  Dignity clauses could be negotiated to hold managers responsible for demeaning treatment of people they supervise.  Not only would such legislation provide a foundation for the prosecution of dehumanizing treatment, it would discourage abusive behavior from occurring at all. 

An emphasis on effective collaboration between the labor unions and the corporation for the benefit of all, much like the Japanese organized labor model, could help insure the company’s continued local operation and competitiveness in the international marketplace.  Increased penalties to employers that discourage or impede workers from organizing their workplace could lead to a more democratic and participatory work environment.  With a greater voice in the operation of the company, employees may experience greater overall job satisfaction and increased production could result.

 <!--[if gte vml 1]> <![endif]--><!--[endif]--><!--[if gte vml 1]><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><!--[endif]-->Organized workers make a visible difference in their communities beyond the workplace.  Statistics show that states with high union membership have lower poverty rates, better schools, fewer health issues, and less crime than states with fewer union members.  Workers whose democratic rights are respected in the workplace are also more likely to believe in the political system and to vote.  High civic participation leads to better public policies that serve the needs of the entire community.  A public relations campaign focusing on organized labor’s many past contributions and current goals to help better working families’ lives could attract a number of new members or people that want to help make a difference in someone’s life.

Brett Smith's Essay

We the American Working Population

By Brett Smith

 

Many people today assume that things are the way they are because that is the way things are supposed to be. Let alone the dangers of this type of ideology regarding our dire need for much more progress; this way of looking at the world lacking depth and only in terms of immediacy doesn’t recognize the serious hardships that were endured in order to get us to where we are today. Before pioneers in human rights fought for better standards of living under barons in Feudalist Europe, conditions we would now consider deplorable were the norm. In our United States, there were many racist leaders and policies that reinforced the prejudices of the day that would blow the minds of current adoring romantics for the days of our founding fathers – from George Washington to Harry Truman. The truth is that there is a tendency for those with power to abuse it if opposing factions don’t hold them in check, and this is the function that labor unions have graced the workers of most developed nations with in order to bring about a higher quality of life for those who don’t own the means to mass-production.

 

Just take a look at the past atrocities that have been made possible by monetary enterprises running free and unregulated. Slavery in the United States, the most relentless form that was known to the world at that time, was seen as just a fact of life. Whereas slave-owners in Africa allowed for some liberties, the ability to work oneself out of slavery, and much more equitable conditions with their “masters” where slaves did the same tasks that their masters did, America took the practice to far new heights. Intentionally spreading feelings of helplessness through the African slave populations by dividing families, brutalizing those who tried to escape their situation, and minimizing the social standing of fellow human beings to less than that of horses, just to name a few. All the while, the US government was hailing all of the profits that were being produced by the US South exporting 7/8 of the world’s cotton (an equivalent to the OPEC black-gold mine) and passed legislature that actively sought to extend and protect these sickening practices. Much like the big businesses that they so eagerly serve, governments have had a long history of being stalemating barriers on progress.

 

Underneath the pretty speeches politicians spew forth that hired scriptwriters produce about our land of freedom and equality, these are basically new concepts – especially when you extend them beyond the white male demographic. Conditions of slavery were far worse than what nearly anybody experiences in contemporary North America. But the fact remains that when privileged businesses are allowed free-reign in their conduct without any policies holding them to their legally and socially necessitated conscience, you better believe that they are willing and ready to unleash the beast on anybody they have to in order to wrench out any profits that they can.

 

The expected practice of corporations today keeping right along the legal boundaries they are prescribed regarding their conduct is proof that the only thing holding them back is the safeguarding laws that keep them on that side of the fence. The reality that they often cross this boundary and try to hide or play down the significance of the violation is even greater proof that if they were allowed to, they would revert to the good old days of even greedier practices than we see today. They might not revive the practice of slavery, but they could easily backtrack a lot of progress that has been made.

For example, civil liberties are already being lost due to the infamous Patriot Act. If they can convince a person that being more “transparent” is protecting them, without labor unions governments could do considerably more damage.

           

            Sick pay, vacation pay, overtime pay, health and disability insurance, higher wages, more reasonable safety standards, prescription drug coverage, pension benefits, etc. These qualities often expected of many contemporary careers were never the standard practice when left in the hands of employers alone, not by a long shot. These privileges were fought for – sometimes to the bitter end – by individuals who refused to live their lives in agony so that some suits could sit and count the stacks of profits that the workers accumulated through sheer dedication. These attributes of decency in the workplace had to be pried from the hands of unbending employers, ever so slowly. Not that the process is over by any means, but the progress that has been made in the name of working populations is very often due to the convictions instilled by labor unions.

           

            To give labor unions a definition, I turn to The History of Trade Unionism by Beatrice and Sidney Webb, “A Trade Union (Labor Union), as we understand the term, is a continuous association of wage-earners for the purpose of maintaining or improving the conditions of their employment.” Functions of trade unions range from defending employees against undue unemployment, collective bargaining with the employers on issues of wages and working conditions, to taking actions against employers through strikes and resistance to lockouts in order to achieve the results workers deserve. If everybody just bum rushed an office of business without any structural backbone for organization, chances are that officials will brush the incident off as the actions of frenzied and frustrated individuals. But with a powerful, unified body of workers represented as One stepping forth to challenge the employer’s injustices, there is much less of a chance that an issue can continue unaddressed.

 

            The need for unions was spurred into necessity by the transition from agrarian civilizations with production based upon crafts into the Industrial Revolution. Ideology aside, a quick read of any major work by Karl Marx will shed light onto the conditions of this period. There were entire families working in factories ridden with filth and exhaustion throughout the day unable to pay for the basics of life. Meanwhile, the privileged few with enough accumulated capital to afford the expensive equipment needed to produce on such a large scale got richer by the minute. As far as they were concerned (and as far as the governments were willing to accommodate the needs of poor citizens), they were gracious enough to provide a means to make any money at all to the expendable workforce. What more should they have to give up to placate the downtrodden populous?

 

            These issues radiated terror through the guilds and crafts of the time, which were ill equipped to combat the ever-growing power and influence held by these businesses in systems of embryonic corporatism. Fears of worsening wages and work methods were rampant.  Women and children were being sucked into the pool of labor and being exploited to an even greater degree than the men were. There were cases of casualties on the job that ended with the corpse being dragged out of the workplace as the replacement walked in. Complete disregard for factory workers was just a reality of the day for the rich capitalists, and if reaching this echelon of society seems difficult by today’s standards then forget about it during this period of time. Only by the grace of god or by sheer fortune would commoners attain the status of the rich and prosperous.

 

            If it were a matter of all the segments of society standing up for themselves alone with nobody to help them along in the process, that would be one thing. But while the masses of desperate laborers were struggling to make pleas for their livelihoods, these businesses were summoning all kinds of support from the governments within which they operated.

Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant

and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour above

their actual rate…[When workers combine,] masters… never cease

to call aloud for the assistance of the civil magistrate, and the

rigorous execution of those laws which have been enacted with so

much severity against the combinations of servants, labourers, and

journeymen. – Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations.

What are you supposed to do when you aren’t being paid an adequate wage to live off of – despite putting forth an unnatural amount of effort – and your boss both won’t make the necessary adjustments and when you try to organize against this injustice the government gets involved on the side of the clenched fist? The powerless workers needed a voice with enough strength to urge forth progress within the resistant ranks of big businesses.         

 

            There was a time in American history that corporations were strictly regulated and meant to be temporary with only a certain amount that they were allowed to make in profit. The founding fathers deserve a great deal of credit – despite their prejudices that aligned them with their day and age – in foreseeing the dangers that permanent corporations would present upon America. With the advent of permanent corporations, the presence of intense influences in the decision-making process of politicians began in its current context. Before this there were a lot of individuals to consider when creating policies (slave-masters, for one), a very unfortunate reality of politics. But the onset of particular individuals given preferential treatment due to their large pool of money to “contribute” for “private interest” is where the course was set for the extremely wealthy to assume more control over the political process. This threw the system even more off balance and presents a whole other issue for why labor unions are so desperately needed. If anything, we need more than labor unions alone to fight these conglomerates and curtail their radical conduct. By giving the heavyweights even more dominance, there needs to be a counterforce to adjust the power structure so that small-time individuals don’t become the cannon fodder of the big-gun corporations.

 

            This isn’t to say that today the US government doesn’t work towards similar goals that previous generations of rulers worldwide sought to sustain. The Bush White House and the Republican majority Congress have been pressing for lesser safety and ergonomic standards, privatized Social Security, undermined overtime, and expanding NAFTA through Central and South America with no regard for worker or environmental safeguards. Without the labor unions that were on the frontlines in this all-out war on the standards of living for generations to come, there is no guarantee that these policy initiatives wouldn’t have been successful. It is for circumstances exactly like the one we are currently enveloped within that labor unions are so vital to maintain and empower. With “social leaders” becoming ever more adept at sending euphemized signals to the masses through televisions and radios, there has never been a more critical moment to stand up against these degenerative forces. There has to be a significant force that is willing and able to combat these forces and encourage those not sitting at the top of the social stratigraphy that they matter just as much as the upper strata do. Without groundbreakers in laborer rights of the past taking action to counter the exploitative factories, who is to say that there would even be the thought in our minds that we deserve more than the hand that feeds us is willing to toss in our general direction today?

 

            The merit of labor unions speaks for itself in the changes that have been brought about through the toils that they have struggled through. The labour movement eliminated child labor exploitation (at least where it has been able to reach), bolstered worker security, elevated wages for union and non-union workers alike, sought and achieved public education for children, lowered the hours in a work week, improved the societal standard of living for all, and this leaves out several aspects that have been progressed through labor union’s efforts.

 

Beyond working for their constituent workers, many of the labor organizations have banded together, bridging gaps across communities, trades, and social brackets. This was the single most important factor in the consolidation of the voice for the American workforce. Without large groups like the AFL-CIO to speak across several segments of our society and actually being able to reach them and provide the means for defense, rallying up the morale of workers against the monolithic corporations that now exist would be nothing short of impossible. Beyond the political role inside of corporations that unions have played, they have also become a powerful player on the larger political stage. Through the mobilization of individual labor union members and the coalitions that have been built through alliances with similarly focused activist organizations on issues like trade policies, immigrant rights, living wage campaigns, and health care, the influence of the working class has been amplified several times from what was once meek at best.

 

Our current situation of job security in America is at a very crucial moment. With jobs being outsourced by multinational corporations to child sweat shops, developing and third-world nations providing impoverished laborers to exploit to egregious extremes, and other nations like India offering countless workers at much cheaper rates – all while these corporations pay little to nothing in taxes yet still experience the benefits as if they did so – it is hard to make oneself appear desirable in many job fields. In many cases, the only way to impress anymore is to be willing to work for the bare minimum, and people who find themselves caught in the crossfire have little means to stake their due claim without being dismissed by a heartless default.

 

This is precisely why unions are so essential. All parameters have at least strengthened. Union members are better fed, paid, clothed, and housed than non-union workers with similar occupations. It is more common for unions to provide improved access to prescription drugs and health care under safer workplaces with an available means to take effective recourse against employers when they breach basic standards of conscience. Women and minority workers also experience less occupational discrimination and are given their due claim to a life of equal opportunity. Unions deserve a deep appreciation by all workers for their support of the working class. To disregard the powers that have been earned through the blood, sweat, and tears of those before us is to spit in the face of the great accomplishments that have been created through these valiant organizations.

Celeste Ripley's Essay

Celestina Ripley

 

3. Why does America still need labor unions?

 

            A single grain of sand contributes to the giant seashore. A single drop of water helps to make the immense oceans. One distrubance in a pond can cause numerous ripples to recreate the glass-like top of the lake into an undualting force. A single seed can be planted and grow to produce hundreds of offspring once it grows into a mighty oak. One person can make a rally cry motivating those around to demand a change for the better. So it is with labor unions: all it takes is one to unite all others. One voice was all that was needed to change the heartless and thankless workplace into an environment that appreciates the worker and understands the demands placed on them. One heart was all that was needed to feel the pain of those suffering around them trying to make a living in conditions that would beat them back into submission. While it may not have been easy and trials were rough, those that persevered bettered all conditions for future generations. Labor unions, however, are by no means finished. They still need to be present in our American society to provide more change towards equality and improvement and serve as an imminent savior waiting in the wings if anything detrimental should happen to its dearest possession: the life of the worker. They need to promise to be there when the going gets tough and watch over those who wish to taint the system. Most importantly, unions need to consider the motivations of the past for advancement into the future.

            When the union movement first strated, working conditions in the United States were to the point of being barbaric, ferocious, and decrepit to say the least. An unseen and unknown owner of a giant company would order those in the positions beneath to oppress the workers for one thing: the almighty dollar that comes from increased output. Many methods were attempted to achieve this selfish greed. Some of those included barring the gates of entry and exit (causing no way of exit in case of a fire which lead to thousands of deaths), minimizing times for meals (leading to exhaustion and dehydration of the workers), closing windows to keep the workers focuses (when they were actually restricting proper ventilation), employing children and women for cheaper labor (though they did equal if not more work than men), and placing hellish work hours on those employed (sometimes even double or triple what a regular work week is in today's society). Injuries were often a common occurrence with limbs and lives lost due to fast moving machines. Those who lived through these injuries were forever scarred physically and mentally with the reminder of their oppression. Illnesses were ramptant from lint clogging lungs, clattering machines stealing the ability to hear, and toxic air poisoning the breathing passages of anyone who took a breath. All of these conditions seemed to dictate an inevitable unrest among those who were employed.

            A small voice could be heard among the masses when the feelings of unrest were first developed concerning the previously stated working conditions. That voice rallied those who were too scared to speak individually for fear of persecution under a uniting flag promising a protection of grouping. The beginning of the union movement was tumultuous to say the least with legislation passed by Congress hindering their efforts and promoting the company giants, blacklists being passed around the businesses pointing an accusing finger at those who wanted change and barring them from unemployment, and even physical and verbal persecution by those in charge. Time was on the unions' side, however, and, after the endurance of all these hardships and many more, the unions championed their cause. They broke through the barriers placed up through the decades and demanded changes to be make. While it may have taken time, the labor unions finally achieved their goal and demonstrated what they really wanted all along in terms of equality and comfort in any working conditions. They became organized after a few stumbles and learned from their past mistakes. Most importantly, the unions never forgot the motivation of that small voice that demanded a change to be made for the improvement of the workplace and the overall life of an employee. Speaking in terms of today's society, that one voice has grown into a resounding shout comprised of millions of union member breathing life into those who have passed on.

            Many may think that our remarkable change from the workplace of a century ago to now shows that unions have done their job and are now merely superficial groupings. They lay stake to the claim that since the conditions have changed, there is nothing left to improve upon. Their opinion and this assumption is completely erroneous and dejecting. Change is a constant struggle to keep advancing and oppose regression into the promitive circumstances. It is present in all facets and niches of surrounding enviroments both natural and manmade and can certainly apply to labor unions. Unions today are more important than they have ever been for many reasons.

            The first reason that unions are of importance today is the security that they provide for future generations. They seem to be a guiding force that promises a workplace that will only get better and a hope for continual advancement. Unions provide those who work for a living with the faith that there will always be a backing strength wanting to promote their intentions and better their lives. They seem to inspire us to look into the past and learn from those that came before us that change is possible and a group will always give power to the individual.

            Another reason that unions are of importance is to build on the things that they have already established. Unions have contributed to such great things as a diverse workplace that avoids bias, equal pay for equal work, pensions in retirement that can assure a comfortable life after dedicating time in the workplace, reasonable hours that allow someone to thrive outside of the workplace allowing for better productivity, more healthy and safe working conditions for all jobs, and so on. The improvements that have graced our society through unions are too numerous to count, but they are by no means finished. It is the continual job of the union to seek out those narrow-minded employers who oppress their workers and show them the error of their ways. It is also their job to publicize those employers who treat their employees as civilized human beings rather then work horses and set them as an example for the world.

            Finally, unions are of importance in America today for the purpose of continuing a legacy. A wise individual once stated that if we do not learn history, it is doomed to repeat itself. We must always consider the intentions and motivations of our ancestors no matter what field they were in or what cause they championed. We must respect their efforts and improve on their ways with the hopes of continuing their work. One of the most disrespectful things to do for those who have tried in the past is to forget their efforts and let them only grace the pages of our history books rather then the brain cells of our mind. Unions document past efforts and seem to promise that the memories and triumphs of the past will always provide impetus for the present and future.

            All it takes is one voice to demonstrate a wish and inspire others. All one needs to do is stand up for what they believe is right and have the motivation to what to change the present from the past and look forward to the future. Union members don't dedicate their sweat, blood, tears, and lives for the glory. They don't do it for the ability to become famous in the eyes of another and to be elevated on a seemingly unrealistic pedestal. Union members demonstrate their calling because of the satisfaction of change and improvement. They do it to inspire others to want to modify uncomfortable conditions without the hindrance of society's current barriers. Once you plant a garden, you do not leave it to grow unattended. You nuture it to provide bountiful harvests and luscious fruits of your labors. So it is with a union. The garden of labor still has fruit that is growing and the gardener, the union, must kee a constant watch that nothing detrimental will occur. This is all from the wishes of one, one who stood up, one who wanted to make a change for the better.

Julie Taylor's Essay

Solidarity: Preserving Dignity for American Workers

By Julie Taylor

 

            Not only does America still need labor unions, it needs them more than ever.  They are our only hope of continuing the American tradition of every worker getting a fair shake and everyone having the chance to succeed through hard work and perseverance.


            In today’s political climate, where capitalism is revered as “God’s will” and CEOs are the new high priests, the rights and dignity of the workingman are eroding daily.  It seems that every time you open a newspaper there is another example of faith being broken with the worker.  Benefits are cut, salaries are frozen and even long-standing pension agreements are revoked.  This news is hard enough to swallow, but when combined with the knowledge that top corporate officials’ salaries and benefit packages are skyrocketing, it is like rubbing salt into the wound. 


            According to the AFL-CIO web site, Executive PayWatch, CEO greed is a great threat to working families’ and their retirement security.  The web site lists incredible examples of corporate greed in salaries, and benefit and retirement packages. The CEO with perhaps the most outrageous retirement package is Henry McKinnell, CEO of pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, which has a non-unionized work force and who leads the Business Roundtable—a major backer of efforts to privatize Social Security.  With a $6.5 million annual retirement deal, he will not have to depend on Social Security when he retires.

            PayWatch points out that in 2005, the average CEO of a Standard & Poor’s 500 top companies received $11.75 million in total compensation and there’s little if any connection between CEO pay and CEO performance. A good example is Pfizer’s McKinnell.  Pfizer’s stock price has dropped nearly 45 percent in the six years he has been in charge.

            PayWatch has a database of 1,500 CEOs and is searchable by company name, ticker symbol, industry or total compensation.  Here it becomes obvious how the gap between the working man and top executives, who reap the benefits of their labor, is widening at an unprecedented rate. We are now at the point where thousand of workers could get health or retirement coverage for what companies pay many CEOs.

            America still needs labor unions because of human nature.  People are able to justify their actions and someone who is getting six million a year will soon believe they deserve seven million.  And that same person can justify the elimination of pension plans claiming it is for the health of the company. 

            To see the good our labor unions do for all in this country and the need for them in the future, all you have to do is look at their history and everything they have made possible.  Unions have been instrumental in American history from the very beginning.  Workers have always been the backbone of this nation. Workers formed primitive unions, or guilds, in many cities in colonial America.  They played a significant role in the struggle for independence.  In 1776 the Declaration of Independence was signed in Carpenters Hall in Philadelphia and the very words spoken there validated union ideals. In "pursuit of happiness" through higher pay and shorter hours, printers were the first to go on strike, in New York in 1794; cabinet makers struck in 1796; carpenters in Philadelphia in 1797; cordwainers in 1799.  From the beginning of our nations history unions have tried to improve the workers' conditions, through either negotiation or strike action.

                Worker’s rights, which seem to be eroding, are not just rights we assume through common sense, they are legislated legal rights. In 1914 Congress passed The Clayton Act which stated that "the labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce".  This was a big step because it made workers not subject to Sherman Act provisions.  The Sherman Act had been the legal basis for injunctions against union organization. The Clayton Act legalized strikes and boycotts and peaceful picketing.  It dramatically limited the use of injunctions in labor disputes. It was the "magna carta" of labor law and the doorway to all the advances made since.  However, in today’s political climate, due to powerful corporate lobbying, injunctions are being more frequently used as politicians interfere in labor disputes.  Therefore, labor unions are needed, and they need to be strong, to fight this trend, or all the advances made over the last 200 years will be lost.

            A civilization is judged by the health, wellbeing and rights of the common man.  It doesn’t matter what the gross national product of a nation is if that wealth is only distributed among the top one percent of its citizens.  The whole concept of our America is that everyone’s well-being is important.  One person’s rights can not be over ruled by the masses and the common man’s rights can not be over ruled by the powerful few.  Labor unions may be the single most powerful influence in America in championing and protecting these rights.   Therefore, America still needs labor unions because the prosperity and happiness of a nation can be measured in the prosperity and happiness of its workers.

Maiah Albi Essay

Maiah Albi

University of Oregon

April 11, 2006

 

America’s Need for Labor Unions

                       

“Stands must be taken.  If I am to respect myself I have to search myself for what I believe is right and take a stand on what I find.  Otherwise I have not gathered together what I have been given; I have not embraced what I have learned; I lack my own conviction.”  Hugh Prather’s statement perfectly embodies the necessity for the continuation of labor unions.  The influence of writers such as Prather, and even revolutionary films such as “Norma Rae”, are effective in conveying the meaning and importance of labor unions in America.  By looking at the goals and accomplishments of labor unions past and present, the need for the continuation of these associations in the United States is strong and clear.

Significantly, labor unions defend the welfare systems of America.  Members of labor unions are safe in the comfort they are protected against immediate unemployment,and the costs of health care and old age, as well as similar expenses.  Members are given legal advice and representation, which is a colossal asset for workers and their families, particularly those who rely on their job’s income for the basic necessities of living.  Labor union workers also have the benefit of collective bargaining, which in many situations allows them to negotiate working conditions and wages with their employers. 

This ensures workers fair pay, hours, and treatment by employers.  Labor unions guarantee workers are not taken advantage of in the workplace, which commonly occurs in situations when power or control is present and abused.  Employees are able to maintain respect for themselves as well as for their employers when they feel comfortable and fairly treated in the workplace, which labor unions are capable of providing. 

Labor unions also allow for workers to take action when necessary to protect their rights.  They provide the opportunity to organize strikes or resist lockouts when inequality or unfair treatment arises.  Labor unions give workers a voice: they are able to speak and act freely when working conditions threaten their jobs or quality of life.  A specific example of a labor union strike with positive benefits in

Eugene, Oregon can be seen last year in the example of the Lane Transit District(LTD) bus strike.  A three-year contract resulted from the six-day strike, which gave workers a better working environment and funding to better service the community.  Before the strike, they effectively notified the community, and even offered suggested alternative temporary modes of transportation for those whose daily life relies on the bus system.  With the support and backing from the local community, the strike was organized, effective and successful, and earned the workers the benefits their work deserved.

Politically, labor unions are a necessity in the United States of America.  Many unions promote legislation or support political candidates.  This support and lobbying is necessary for many political campaigns, and ensure the nation’s leaders even more funding and support in order to achieve their goals through leadership.

Labor unions also influence society through alliances with activist organizations.

In the past, labor unions have raised issues of health care, immigrant rights and trade policies alongside activist organizations.  Their work and sphere of influence touched not only the labor union and its members, but continues to permeate the surrounding communities and nation as a whole.

Labor union work has proven to be beneficial for the nation’s children as well.

Union work in the past ended child labor and has continued to fight for children’s education.  Also, the effective reduction of hours in a workweek allows union members more time in the home and family and most importantly, with their children.

This increase in salary and time for the family has raised the nation’s standard of living.  Labor union workers can provide more without sacrificing quality time in the home.  Therefore, labor unions continue to provide for families who are thankful to be able to give the support and time necessary for a successful family and quality of life.

Not only has union work enabled increased wages and decreased hours, it ensures worker safety and equality.  Quality of life has risen as a direct result from the work and action of labor unions, and women specifically in labor unions have seen and increase in workplace equality as well.  Women have continued to earn fairer pay in relation to their male counterparts, and are protected and supported when they stand for their rights and refuse to accept discrimination or harassment in the workplace.

More than just the money, labor unions care about equality, freedom and protection. The unions empower the people to fight for and speak up for a fair and just working environment, without fear of rebuke or punishment.  Labor unions effectively establish dignity, self-worth among its workers and productive and flourishing businesses across the nation, and America in Solidarity perfectly embodies the unified spirit necessary to continue to provide a fair and just world for the workers of America.

Nathan Wilmers' Essay

Why America still needs labor unions.

 

            “The only way Ford’s gonna be competitive globally is if it crushes that damn labor union,”

            I sat bolt upright, hardly believing my ears. 

            “what?! You blame the unions for the failures of the ailing American corporatocr—,” I started to responded, but was quickly silenced by my father’s swift kick at my leg under the table. 

I had already had misgivings about attending such a self-congratulatory, elitist function, but my parents had convinced me that it would be unpalatably disrespectful for me to turn down the Optimist Club Youth Award.  As such, I found myself, at the ungodly hour of 7:30 in the morning, sitting with several other winners and some representatives of the Optimist Club, vainly trying to keep from nodding off as their conversation languidly moved from golfing to the “Optimist Creed” and to which were the nicest restaurants in the Birmingham area (a rich suburb of Detroit).  The rabidly anti-labor comment that had finally pulled me from my stupor came from a particularly botox-ed Optimist Clubber and fulfilled my stereotype of the bourgeois “liberal” more than even the most biting DRUM Black Power anti-capitalist cartoon.  Needless to say, last fall when I was surprisingly given the same award again, I politely turned it down and have had no encounters with the Optimist Club since.

Sadly, however, I could not avoid Botox-man’s venomous comment quite as easily.  As offhand and absurd as this undisguised condemnation of one of the nation’s largest labor unions was, it seems indicative of the method of the contemporary anti-union discourse.  The ignorant Trust-Fund man who happened to present this opinion was hardly the first to do so; simply the most blatant and un-circumspect in a long series of anti-union pro-corporate globalization pundits.  Indeed it seems that American unions have been figured as isolationist, reactionary entities attempting to block the inexorable motion of corporate globalization; selfish organizations that prevent further development and job creation in the poorest parts of the world.  This, of course, could not be further from the truth.

As Co-president of my school’s Amnesty International chapter, I chose to focus on “Human Rights and Economic Globalization” as our human rights topic for this year.  Throughout the year we have tried to educate our teachers and fellow classmates about the oft-brutal realities of a globalization that takes no account of worker’s safety, living wages or human rights.  In our first newsletter of the year, I wrote:

Economic globalization is basically the increasing trend towards economic interdependence across national boundaries- it is a term that describes investment by wealthy foreign companies in under-developed or developing countries in order for the companies to develop and exploit the cheap labor markets and untapped natural resources of such countries- it is a term that explains why the white undershirt you’re wearing right now was made in Honduras or why your pants were made in Cambodia.  Economic globalization and foreign investment can bring new jobs and capital to the poorest of countries, but it can also undermine the fledgling local economies of such developing nations while circumventing the hard-won labor and environmental rights in place in late capitalist nations.  In fact the entire concept of a foreign owned corporation- a corporation run by fabulously rich white men who are only investing in a given community because they believe they can turn an often short term profit there- a corporation with very little accountability and with influence and power matching its vast wealth- seems to lend itself to the dehumanization of local peoples and the violation of their basic human rights.

 

So, our group tried to educate our community about the awful consequences of economic globalization both to our own local Detroit economy—an economy highly dependant on the jobs that are now being lost by the rapidly outsourcing automobile industry—and the developing nations who are supposed to be the beneficiaries of globalization.  Indeed, we concluded that the current model of economic globalization was designed by and for a corporate elite and the most effective counterweight to these greedy corporations were unions. 

            American unions are on the front line of the battle against the outsourcing that throws decent workers out of jobs they’ve worked much of their life.  Unions channel the power and protest of workers in the face of a vicious free market ideology that places the capital accumulation by the super-rich above all other considerations.  Unions educate workers about the reasons corporations give for outsourcing, and expose these reasons for what they really are—hollow excuses for more corporate pocket-lining.  Even beyond the context of economic globalization, labor unions continue to be a bastion of workers rights.  Unions fight for workplace safety, good health care, pensions, and respect at the workplace.

            However, America, and the world, also needs labor unions to fulfill a purpose that they have largely failed in thus far.  Labor unions must understand that corporate globalization will continue unless they are able to organize effectively in a transnational setting.  American labor unions must look over the Mexican-U.S. border and see that maquiladora border factories, the terrible offspring of NAFTA, exploit cheap labor and offer only unbearable working conditions; they must recognize that the conditions in Mexico and elsewhere around the world are rife for unionization and must support grassroots efforts at labor organization in such places.  Only if the workers of the world can unite in unions can the current model of economic globalization be replaced with a more egalitarian and humanist model of global development.

Wyatt Ellis' Essay

Wyatt Ellis

April 15, 2006

America In Solidarity

Scholarship Application Essay

 

Why America Sill Needs Labor Unions

The purpose of this essay is to give my opinion on why American workers still need labor unions. The prompt seems to imply that we in fact do need unions, but my question is does America really need labor unions at all? Labor unions’ aims are maintaining or improving the conditions of their employment. Some of these conditions they aim to improve are wages, medical benefits, reasonable workdays, job security, and safety. Why would unions need to fight for these things if they have an employer who would willingly pay a fair wage, give medical benefits, promise job security, and ensure a safe working environment? The answer is, as sad as it may sound, that this type of employer does not exist, and workers must unite to ensure these things will be given.

            My knowledge and experience with unions comes directly from the ILWU, Local 23, where my grandfather, father, uncles, and cousins are all members. Growing up, I took what the union had given my family for granted, not out of disrespect or lack of appreciation, but out of ignorance. My whole life, our family had great medical benefits, my Dad had a schedule that allowed him to take days off when he needed, and he didn’t have the stress or worry of losing his job. I had always thought that this is the way every American’s job was. As I grew up and began to understand how business, economics, and politics worked, I realized that this is far from the reality. All of these things that my father and other ILWU members rightfully enjoy are things that the union had fought for. The ILWU began when workers of all races and beliefs came together with one single purpose: to achieve a better life for themselves and their families. “The history of the ILWU, the record of its origins and traditions, is about workers who built a union that is democratic, militant and dedicated to the idea that solidarity with other workers and other unions is the key to achieving economic security and a peaceful world.” (ILWU.org) Economic security and a peaceful world is why America needs labor unions.

            The time period and context in which the ILWU began is vastly different from the times now, but the attitude and purpose is the same. Everything including the work itself, the political climate, and issues that the union and employers fight over has changed. The vessels that longshoremen used to work on were general cargo, and the work was very irregular. Today, the majority of ships hold containers and there is a fairly steady flow of work year round. So the question, again, is why do we still need labor unions? Unions are necessary to continue protecting workers from the same issues that they have had since the start as well as unforeseen, new issues that may arise.

Today’s political climate on the national level is not in favor of unions, let alone one as powerful as the ILWU. As we have already witnessed in 2002, as the longshoremen and the employer had disputes on contract issues, the PMA locked out the longshoremen, which enabled the Bush Administration to seek a national emergency injunction under the Taft-Hartley Act. Opponents of the union have suggest moving longshore workers from under the National Labor Relations Act, which allows workers the right to collective bargaining and strike, to coverage under the Railway Labor Act, which would deny this union the right to strike. Under similar circumstances, in 1981 Ronald Reagan fired over 13,000 striking air-traffic controllers after ignoring his order to return to work. This blatant disregard of workers’ rights is precisely why workers must unionize.

As the ILWU website stated above suggests, unions must not only work for their own, but all working men and women, and all unions. The air-traffic controllers’ strike was supported by 85% of their workers. This was still not enough because only about 1,650 had returned to work. Even when nearly all of the workers of such a large union were on strike, they still were unsuccessful. It is the responsibility of all unions help out other unions and create a positive view of unions in the public eye, so laws which deny 1^st Amendment rights, like the right to assemble, will not be implemented. It is also their responsibility to help non-union workers establish a sense of solidarity with their fellow workers.

Now that I have explained why I think America still needs labor unions, the next question is how can they continue to have success in creating better lives for its workers and their families? The traditions of democracy and solidarity in the ILWU and others are essential to their survival. It is every worker’s responsibility to be loyal and respectful of his or her union, because it is only as strong as what you make it. Every single day can be looked at as an opportunity to strengthen or weaken your union. The productivity and efficiency of the work and the safety of workers are what will give the employer a good reason to respect their employees. Everybody benefits from getting the work done and every person going home safely at the end of the day.

The next step is to educate and include the youth and young workers on union issues. The young workers will be the ones who will take over the union when it is their time, and depending on how they are educated and treated will determine how they will treat the union. It is essential for the union’s future to do what it can; in addition what it already does, to build a strong support for its future. I understand that new workers are not yet entitled to the same freedoms as veterans, but investment in the future should be an important goal.

This is my personal view on why America still needs labor unions. People outside of union families may have drastically different views, but this is the reason why workers must create a sense of solidarity among American workers -- union or not. Rights that workers have should be a given, however, greedy corporations and their supporting politicians make this difficult to achieve. It should be every American worker’s priority to support the idea “that all Americans will be entitled to a fair and honest wage, affordable health care coverage, a safe work environment, and protection from corporate greed.” (America In Solidarity)

Internships with America In Solidarity

2005's Winning Essay

Claire Keller-Scholz
America In Solidarity
College Scholarship Application

(c) “Why America Still Needs Labor Unions”

For several years now, I have played with the Washington Old Time Fiddler’s Association, and enjoyed jamming at the monthly meetings, which take place in the Carpenters Union on Fawcett Ave. in Tacoma. In return for the use of their building, the fiddlers play at different union events during the year. The one event I look forward to each year is the Carpenters Union Christmas party, when the Junior Fiddler’s do a show of Christmas tunes for the workers and their families. During our meetings and shows, I have often stopped and read the bulletin board in the lobby. What I see there concerns me, because having known labor union workers personally, I can get a sense of how serious the current labor crisis is. There are many advertisements speaking of carpenters who need jobs, and not a few posters about union rallies or strikes. When I see the families that come in for the Christmas show, and put it together with the problems of the job market, I see that now, more than ever, America needs labor unions.

The cost of living in 2005 is much greater now than it has been in previous decades and inflation is not the only explanation for it. Health and life insurance are getting more expensive, and many Americans cannot afford either. Unions enable workers to band together and demand a just wage from their employers, as well as giving them a support base to fall back on during times of unemployment and hardship. When companies such as Wal-Mart refuse to allow their employees to unionize, they deny them the right to negotiate for a living wage. As a result, employees and their families suffer. They are forced to work two, sometimes three jobs simply to make enough money to get by.

One reality that business leaders and workers have to face is the “out-sourcing” of jobs. This allows companies to employ people in different parts of the world at a much lower cost to them. Although this does enable American business to reduce costs and expand profits, the truth is that the average worker will not be able to afford the products, even at the cheaper price, if he himself is not able to earn a living wage. By taking jobs outside of America, workers here are being forced to work at places that cannot support them, because they have no other options. Unions are under attack now because some businesses claim they cannot keep up with competitors while at the same time paying union members full benefits. Unions continue to challenge companies to see their relationships with workers as more than just a confrontational one. As Spokane’s Catholic Bishop William Skylstad wrote for the United States Catholic bishops in their  1998 Labor Day statement, “Each of us has a responsibility to make this economy work for everyone: employers, workers, shareholders, union members, consumers. As followers of Jesus Christ we are called to measure our economy, not only by what it produces, but how it touches human life, whether it protects human dignity and strengthens family life.”

Perhaps the most important function of unions, besides providing a living wage, is the guarantee of  benefits such as health insurance, and pension plans for retirement. As Social Security erodes, workers will need other sources of support as they grow older. Unions have traditionally been a steady source of support for their members who can no longer work. Despite the decline of union membership over the last 25 years, people will realize this essential role of unions and in the near future unions will grow to expand their influence in a variety of fields, such as technological-based  industries and service industries. Something else that labor unions provide is access to training that non-members may not have, thus allowing the union members to have a better chance at getting a job with a just wage.

Ironically, the future of America’s labor unions depends on the unionization of workers around the world. As those workers begin to organize for better working conditions in their own countries, business will have to come up with a solution to maximize profits while at the same time respecting the rights of workers all over the world. In today’s global economy, the economic situations of individual nations are inter-woven; therefore unions are a vital part of a healthy world-wide economy.

America needs unions. Before the Old Time Fiddler’s moved their meeting to the Carpenters Hall, I never realized the role unions play in the lives of many working families. Unions are more than just a club one joins to show solidarity with other people who share the same job. Without the support and benefits unions provide, many more people would be living below the poverty line. Though we talk about the problem of unemployment, the real problem is low wages in the jobs that are available. Even if one can get a job, does that job provide the worker with a wage that he/she can live on? Unions allow people to get jobs that pay adequately so workers can concentrate on doing their job well. As I saw on the bulletin board in the Carpenters Hall, the struggle for worker solidarity is ongoing. America needs unions to help workers find good jobs that will allow them to support their families.

Win a free t-shirt!