Towards the beginning of the article, Bao states that there were an estimated sixteen thousand garment workers in Chinatown by 1980 (288). However, the original daycare center only provided spots for 70 preschool aged children per year (296). Of course, not all 16,000 women would have preschool aged children, but 70 spots is still woefully inadequate. Even when a second daycare center was established in 1993, "the two daycare centers are insufficient in meeting the tremendous needs of working mothers in the community" (296).
The degree to which the concessions made by the union met the needs of the working mothers is partially outside of the scope of Bao's argument. Bao's goals seemed to be to illuminate the unique experience of female immigrant garment workers and how they are perceived by detailing a mass organized movement to demand resources to address their needs. In this way, to what extent the needs of these women were addressed is secondary to the fact that they got the attention of the management and were able to catalyze some action at all.
Nonetheless, I would have appreciated a more in depth discussion or even a small acknowledgement that many of the concessions made by unions and the government in regards to social services are often cosmetic, addressing the needs of only a small percentage of the people who desperately need help. These small patches allow the government, union, whoever to make a small change to demonstrate that they have acknowledged the existence of the problem. By making that small change, they seem enlightened and beneficent and can pretend to be looking out for the interest of the worker. They seem to care, but they have not addressed the issue in full. The problem will continue (and does continue) to persist so long as society is willing to be content with any forward action. In this, I am not saying that actions forward are categorically bad but that they are not enough. As far as the right to early childcare goes, pushing for some forward action, any forward action, without acknowledging that the final goal should be accessible and affordable early childcare for everyone who wants and needs it may easily lead to contentment with one's situation once one's particular wants and needs have been addressed.
Yes yes yes! It might have served her purpose, too, in that it would demonstrate the need for continued political consciousness among the workers. The idea isn't that there was this one issue and then once they united to get rid of it, everything was fine; the idea (at least it seems to me) is that this should be a model for political action, that members of the community adapting their tactics to address their needs and without guidance from some Leninesque intellectual class is good stuff. So pointing out that the tactics of the union serve somewhat to pacify action would also point out that further action is desirable and should be supported.
ReplyDelete