“The labor movement and the environmental movement have always been natural allies”

Movements, historically started by the active need for advocacy from different demographics,
social groups, or sectors of the population facing mistreatment, have been around since there
exists a disparity between social groups that affects one, thus it remounting to even before
freedom of speech was allowed. In the face of systematic oppression and constant injustice,
people have always felt the need to protest, and that is precisely how the labor movement was
born, due to unfair, even inhumane labor conditions at times given to the laboring class, which
historically has been fundamental to the evolution of labor laws, as it puts some resistance to
oppression by affecting production consequently instigating change, which has resulted in the
passing of more progressive fair labor laws as time has gone by.

On the other hand, the environmental movement advocates for that which cannot speak for
itself, the environment, and encourages its preservation by protesting against those who in the
name of profit, harm it. Naturally, since both parties' goals are drastically different they very
rarely have aligned views in matters which affect them both.

In the first place, both movements are from different eras, according to the article "
Environmental justice for whom?", the labor movement is considered an old movement while
the environmental one is considered a new movement. This is important to note as the author,
John Henry Harter believes one of the main reasons the parties do not usually align therefore
not being natural allies and contradicting the claim, is because the former party was ] created
out of need and hardship while the latter party was created from a position of comfort.

Old movements are usually built on the face of systematic oppression as previously mentioned,
and most of its members conform to the laboring class, who are subjected to and affected by
the labor laws therefore wanting to change them. On the other hand, the environmental
movement is a party created theoretically upon belief and care for the planet, but its members
are the most part of the professional-managerial class, and because we have yet been able to
be a classless society, their views usually have a disguised anti-working-class radicalism, directly
opposing the labor movement.

In the second place, as the professional-managerial class is oftentimes blinded by its privilege, it
acts in a way where it at times directly affects the working class. The article presents a clear
example where that can be seen. Greenpeace and environmental movements protested seal
hunting in Newfoundland where it was not only a huge part of their culture but also their main
economic activity, to the point they managed to ban it, without realizing or perhaps even caring
about the laborers who were going be the ones directly affected by the ban, and that to protect
fishery seals couldn't just massively reproduce and would still need to be offed. This example
shows what oftentimes happens, the interest of the working class directly opposes that of the
environmental movements as the environmental movements usually seek to ban something
they deem per judiciary to the environment, and those bans usually directly affect the laborers'
ability to work, which they need to be able to survive, so their stan usually opposes that of the
environmental movement and usually tends to align with whoever party is promoting work.
2)

For years capitalist society has pushed the narrative that hard work, loyalty, and commitment to
work will be remunerated with economic success and a prosperous happy life, nonetheless in
the article to be analyzed, journalist Sarah Jaffe revolutionized this idea. Work Won't Love You
Back, the name of her published book regarding labor and exploitation explores how this
preconceived idea is only a product of capitalism and how we, as laborers only get wronged by
it.

Capitalism has created a class difference in labor, blue collared jobs on one side and white-
collared jobs on the other Jaffe on page 5 mentions how " We treat whole types of work as if
they're less important because we don't think of the people who do them as importatnt". That
perspective has been generated due to how much society has adopted capitalist views.
Normalized that someone's worth as an individual and worker is directly related to what their
contribution to society is, and those who aren't part of the professional-managerial class are
deemed unimportant.

The socially marginated blue-collar laborers can be unionized, but "the workers who are socially
coded as important as not needed unions" (P4) should not. This idea was created with the
intent to make collared workers also disposable, as it instills the idea in their heads that they as
socially acceptable laborers are on top of blue-collared laborers, and only those are unionized.
To join a union would mean to give up the fake superiority and reduce themselves to the lower
standards of unionized people which as we previously established are deemed not important.

This results in most white-collar laborers not joining a union but as Jaffe stated on the last page
"everyone should unionized their workplace" because the company's only interest is the profit,
and the second a worker is no longer profitable, as pleasant of a relationship they could've had
with the company, it will be gone, so its better to have a union within the workplace that has
the workers best interest as a goal for a change.

The author uses herself as an example that the idea previously mentioned of what capitalism
has made us believe doesn't isn't real and doesn't benefit people, only the system. She states
she is the most educated person in her family nevertheless she isn't by far the wealthiest as she
hasn't been able to even get an apartment due to the loans she had to take for schooling.
Capitalist society makes people get into school with the promise of future prosperity but only
leaves people in debt, banks profiting off of interest, and people with social capital but unable
to take out a mortgage

That socially constructed differentiation between labor only adversely affects the workers as at
the end of the day both blue and white-collar laborers are still laborers, they more often than
do not control the conditions of their labor or get to keep the product of it, and that idea of
lesser than labor only prevents people from the professional-managerial class or even people
who don't have the absolute worst jobs to get the protection and benefits from joining a union
that they deserve, only due to the stigma and fear of repercussions from a capitalist society,
who only works against you