Thoughts on Labor Day
Although Labor Day in past years was always apt to conjure images of a late summer sun and the grizzled wafts of a rustic barbecue pit, my relationship with the holiday grew somewhat more complex in recent years. Due to college’s August start, I was forced to imbue new meaning into a day which was then spent away from family, instead celebrating in stolid lecture halls. In my freshman year, my reaction to this fate was mostly one of indignance. “Why must I endure this monotony,” I obstinately wondered, “...when this is the one day where this country explicitly grants a reprieve from hard work?” Granted, being a student was not exactly labor, but I justified this position by attempting to vicariously generate some outrage on behalf of my professors.
Over time, these frustrated thoughts lent themselves to the realm of philosophy, as I began to further ponder America’s relationship with labor. I soon learned that many countries celebrated their workers not during September, but on the first of May. This was not some improbable coincidence, but rather a collective nod to May Day, for this date was chosen over a century ago in the spirit of Marxist solidarity. Considering the contentious relationship a substantial number of Americans have with communism, the insistence on celebrating four month later was not what surprised me (although this is telling).
Rather, what baffled me was the disparity in how the occasion was recognized domestically and abroad. Most countries direct all of their schools and businesses to shutter on their respective laborer celebrations, while the United States grants no such mandatory holiday. Indeed, no federal holiday in our republic is one in which all employers are compelled to give any time off. Is it not bizarre, even ironic, that the common American has no claim over the day ostensibly designated for them?
Some may try to justify this aberrance in the libertarian spirit, arguing that employers have the freedom to run their businesses as they please, employees being free to work somewhere else if they do not like it. However, I feel like such distinct American modes of thinking fumble over the nuance that comes with handling a nation of three hundred and thirty million. Yes, employers should be accorded certain freedoms in managing their businesses, but to see the consequences of not checking these liberties, one need only look at the past century and a half. If the same reasoning had been applied in our fairly recent history, could it not vindicate those who put children in coal mines, and even those who owned slaves?
Moreover, the freedom attributed to the latter party in this argument is far more elusive. Although the days of conspicuous bondage are gone in America, present still are the tethers which bereave the working class of much of their social mobility. As a nation of optimists, we tend to overestimate the ease in which we may reposition ourselves in the job market to capture more security and dignity. However, when so thin a safety net exists for so many, and with countless career prospects bleak in our current economy, it is unreasonable to expect workers to “go somewhere else” if something as seemingly inconsequential as a worker’s holiday is not granted.
This position is pragmatic, except in its determination of what is inconsequential. I do concede that one day off in a year of hundreds does not make too great of a difference, however, America’s failure to grant nationwide respite during Labor Day stands behind an intellectually dishonest line of reasoning that has been used to justify far greater woes endemic to her land. If we are to truly be an equitable nation, the concession must be made that the liberties of one party are susceptible to encroaching upon those of another. Once enough of us come to this realization, we can demand that certain easements be extended to us which were previously denied in the name of freedom, including that of a day off on the first Monday of September.
