>demean, and harass workers of color. Even if it is triggered by job
>insecurity, that insecurity is expressed through the ingrained racist
>attitudes in ways that would not be true of the coworker were white.
>Motivations in these cases are filtered through the harasser's prejudices
>and bigotry, not their insecurity alone.
Granted. I also agree with your point that motives of the harasser do not matter when the imapct of the harassment on victims is concerned.
The point I was trying to make was that in this country there is no such a thing as wokers rights - most employment grievances must be re-defined as civil rights issues to be considered valid. Hnece we have sexual harassment laws, but no laws that prevent adverse work conditions in general (e.g. for gays, or social outcasts who do not belong to the 'endangered species").
I still think that sexual harassment and ostracism of certain groups of people from good jobs are two analytically separate phenomena (even though, as you correctly pointed out, that may make little difference to the victims). Call it academic hair splitting, but that is what most legal arguments are all about, no?
>
>I would remind you that the record of unions with respect to sexism and
>racism is not so decidedly positive as you would suggest. There are ample
>examples of unions that have *organized* the harassment of women and Blacks.
I have no illusions in this respect. All I was saying is that if the management would not put such a squeeze on workers and good jobs, the unions would have fewer incentives to resort to racism and sexism to defend those jobs. That, of course, would not change their sexist attitudes, it would merely reduce their sexist behavior.
Regards,
Wojtek