this post was submitted on 13 May 2025
161 points (100.0% liked)
Leopards Ate My Face
6546 readers
184 users here now
Rules:
- If you don't already have some understanding of what this is, try reading this post. Off-topic posts will be removed.
- Please use a high-quality source to explain why your post fits if you think it might not be common knowledge and isn't explained within the post itself.
- Links to articles should be high-quality sources – for example, not the Daily Mail, the New York Post, Newsweek, etc. For a rough idea, check out this list. If it's marked in red, it probably isn't allowed; if it's yellow, exercise caution.
- The mods are fallible; if you've been banned or had a comment removed, you're encouraged to appeal it.
- For accessibility reasons, an image of text must either have alt text or a transcription in the comments.
- All Lemmy.World Terms of Service apply.
Also feel free to check out [email protected] (also active).
Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.
_portrait.jpg){kind=link}
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So then it would seem more productive to bash the Trump administration's labor policies than to bash the idea that there should be factory workers. The take away from this article for me is not that it is crazy for people and their children (once grown) to work in factories, but that we need to advance the policies you point out to make that into a reality that is sustainable.
Sorry this comment is a doozy, I had a lot on my mind with it lol
While I agree with you, I did not come away from that article with the same conclusion. Nowhere in that article did the SOC mention supporting strong labor protections or progressive labor policy.
In fact, we know from experience that Republicans hate those things, because they're backed by wealthy industrialists. This is absolutely crucial: the things that would make factory work a worthwhile career, like good wages, lots of PTO time, safe workplaces, low pollution, retirement funds, etc are not only expensive to capitalists, they are also the things people need in order to leave a factory job.
Our hypothetical factory worker is happy, but he's getting older, slowing down, his hands hurt from all the work, its unavoidable. So he wants to move up the corporate ladder and into positions that require more soft skills. To that end, he pursues higher education, which requires money and time off. And once he gets his degree and reaches the top of this corporate ladder, he can now transfer his very desirable skills to new jobs, new industries, maybe even white collar work.
You see how this is at odds with Lutnick's vision of intergenerational factory workers? Like, this utopia I've just laid out is not what he's selling. He's selling the complete destruction of class mobility. He wants people who can't leave their jobs, who can't pursue better prospects, and who can't create a better life for their family. He wants your children to know "you will never amount to anything more than your father, or your grandfather."
And that's very appealing to the factory owner. He doesn't have to maintain a safe workplace, because the alternative is jobless and homeless. He doesn't have to pay a dignified wage, he doesn't have to schedule work around your vacation time, and he won't have to pay for the tools you need to escape. And, the cherry on top, he has the next two generations of workers lined up, learning from Pops!
I grew up watching my father go from field technician, to night school bachelor's student, to software engineer. I saw my uncle become a car mechanic, stay a car mechanic, and is now too old to keep working but doesn't have enough saved for retirement. My grandfather worked in a glass cutting factory. Believe me, I'm not shitting on factory work. I'm shitting on the people who want to create shitty factory work. And the article is very captivated by the guy who wants to create shitty factory work.
Fair to point out that Trump and Lutnick suck bad and aren't really going to do anything to help factory workers. I guess that point feels obvious to me so I gloss over it in my comments. When I read an article like this, my takeaway may not always be the author's intended point.
I still resist the idea that it must always be better to "escape" the factory and work elsewhere.
You say you aren't shitting on factory work. But you also seem to feel that the ability to exit the factory is fundamental to having a good life. I agree that people should be able to choose what field they work in, so no I don't think that every person should feel locked in to factory work, but I do think that we should focus on how to make factory work appealing, unlike it is now.
We need to be talking about more than just worker protections (although that is where policy needs to start and I agree they are the foundation for any further progress). We need to talk about government recommendations for management practices, grants for labor research, and possibly incentives for progressive management styles. We need to make factories into places that people don't want to escape.
And as consumers, we need to push for the reality we want to see. If we have the ability, we should do our best to support companies with better labor practices - for example, the B corp and the Well certifications require certain employee wellness minimums, so when buying mass produced goods, prioritize ones with a certification like that.
Yeah I'll admit "escape" didn't do me any favors LOL, but I meant it more in the context of my family and the difference in social mobility. Factories can be, and ought to be, great places to work, I just don't think a person can do that work for their entire life. Just like a factory should be a great place to work, it should also be possible for people to find other places to work.
By the way, it's nice to be able to talk about it without it getting hostile in the way social media tends to do. :)