Through the power of unions, we have observed shifting organizational dynamics across multiple industries in recent months, including within public education and health care. Interestingly, I have listened multiple times as men have explained why teachers and nurses, unlike other union members, should have no right to strike (“Readers respond: Banning teachers strikes in Oregon’s best interest,” Nov. 29).
Oddly, I didn’t hear such arguments when people discussed striking auto workers or Hollywood writers. My suspicion is that many object to workers’ ability to strike when a union represents professions dominated by females. It’s their job to nurture, educate and take care of everyone else, so how dare they inconvenience - “disrupt” lives despite advocating for clean, safe, equitable learning and healing environments for all - not just themselves.
The desire to remove what is often the only final remedy a union has when confronting inequity aligns with the current trend of eroding other women’s rights in this country.
I find it deeply ironic, given the level of disruption - nay, obstruction- that occurred at the hands of Republican senators during their six-week-long walkout earlier this year. Voters made it pretty clear how they felt about senators who avoid their responsibilities, and yet many insist the law shouldn’t be applied to them. But they were neither predominantly female, nor actively expected to educate or heal others, so I suppose their dereliction was permissible.
Those who educate and care for our most vulnerable citizens should have more right to strike than anyone; they do the work for which few others have the courage.
Sarah Foltz, Milwaukie
To read more letters to the editor, go to oregonlive.com/opinion.