Learn about the origin of the only federal holiday dedicated to honoring and recognizing America's workers.
Video: The history of Labor Day
The History of Labor Day
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Join a growing community committed to civic renewal.
Subscribe to The Fulcrum and be part of the conversation.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
U.S. President Donald Trump delivers the State of the Union address during a joint session of Congress in the House Chamber at the Capitol on February 24, 2026 in Washington, DC.
(Photo by Kenny Holston-Pool/Getty Images)
Resilience Is Not a Workplace Strategy
Mar 15, 2026
In his State of the Union address this year, the president gloriously celebrated how the nation is “winning.” Timed to lead into Women’s History Month, he made a brief mention of how women successfully balance both work and child-rearing. These stories matter. Representation matters. However, there is danger in glorifying resilience, particularly when it allows toxic workplace cultures to remain unchanged while employees absorb the cost.
Before we are employees, we are taught from an early age that freedom means pursuing “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” Yet for many American women—especially Black women—the conditions required for these pursuits are constrained by economic structures that consume the very time and energy needed to experience the joy of being fully alive and free. In fact, a national survey conducted by the American Psychological Association found that women consistently reported higher stress levels than men. And a poll by the National Women’s Law Center and Morning Consult specifically highlighted the number of Black women (more than half) who described how stress in the workplace adversely impacts their health.
This is a structural consequence of workplace cultures that normalize overload and treat exhaustion as evidence of commitment and loyalty. Not surprisingly, younger generations are increasingly unwilling to remain in workplaces that disregard personal wellness. According to a report from the Mather Institute, about 6 out of 10 Millennials and Gen Zers would leave their jobs if they believed their workplaces did not support their wellbeing. This shift signals a growing awareness that sustainable work requires respecting human limits. While frequently and unfairly framed as frailty, it is, more accurately, a refreshing reality about achieving sustainability.
After dedicating more than a decade to education and the nonprofit sector, I recently left the workforce voluntarily. The expectations for the workplace culture were unsustainable. Expectations and demands expanded while capacity and support did not. For example, when I raised concerns about managing an unrealistic workload and asked for guidance on prioritization, I was told, “Everything is a priority.”
My experiences are not unique to me or to nonprofit organizations. They reflect a broader culture of overwork that treats productivity and eventual burnout as the primary measure of value. When “everything is a priority," employees internalize the burden.
My decision to leave paid work was not an act of retreat but an interruption. In this pause, I began to see more clearly how the structure of work had shaped my life. I operated out of a scarcity of time because there was none. I now exercise twice a day. I signed up to volunteer in my community, something I had wanted to do for years but could not schedule while working full-time.
My decision to leave paid work fits into a broader pattern of exit, such as the rise of “BLAXIT,” a movement in which Black families are choosing to leave the U.S. in search of safety, stability, and peace. These decisions are not impulsive but a response to cumulative stress compounded by unbearable economic, racial, and political unrest that makes living, let alone thriving, feel impossible.
Leaving your job is not reasonable for everyone in this economy, but there are small ways to liberate yourself. We can engage in small, consistent acts that conserve our energy and invite intentional ways of living beyond productivity alone.
To be sure, the decision to leave paid work may reinforce the justifications used to push women out of the workforce into more "traditional" roles outside the labor market. In these roles, women cannot exercise economic freedom or influence institutional work policies to create work environments that are equally fair for all.
But the response cannot be silent resilience inside systems that harm wellbeing. Workplace culture, whether stated explicitly or not, is experienced by employees and should not be accidental.
Employers cannot continue celebrating the resilience and achievements of women while designing workplaces that depend on that same resilience. If organizations are serious about retention and productivity, they must:
- Set realistic workloads.
- Train managers to clarify decisions and priorities.
- Treat rest as a condition for sustained performance.
Tools like Preferences, Traditions, and Requirements (PTR) can help leaders distinguish essential outcomes from habits and personal preferences, aligning teams on clear results rather than unspoken customs.
Women’s History Month invites us to ask not only what women have endured but what kind of lives we are able to imagine beyond endurance. Until we honestly confront these challenges, we can at least honor and celebrate:
The woman who reimagines.
The woman who rests.
The woman who resists.
Kamye Hugley is a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project in partnership with the National Black Child Development Institute.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
(left to right): 1. Anabel Mendoza speaking at the Forum for 7th US Congressional District Democratic Candidates at Harry Caray’s 7th Inning Stretch in Streeterville. Video still. By Britton Struthers-Lugo, February 26, 2026.2. Jazmin Robinson (left) sitting at the Forum for 7th US Congressional District Democratic Candidates at Harry Caray’s 7th Inning Stretch in Streeterville. By Britton Struthers-Lugo, February 26, 2026. 3. Felix Tello speaking at the Forum for 7th US Congressional District Democratic Candidates at Harry Caray’s 7th Inning Stretch in Streeterville.
Video still. By Britton Struthers-Lugo, February 26, 2026. Illinois Latino News
Three candidates vie to become the first Latino Representative for Illinois Congressional District
Mar 15, 2026
United States Representative Danny Davis announced in July 2025 that he would not be seeking re-election in Illinois’s 7th Congressional District, motivating 13 Democrats and two Republicans to compete for the seat.
As the Illinois primary on March 17 approaches, three Latino candidates hope to become the Democratic nominee: Anabel Mendoza, Jazmin J. Robinson, and Felix Tello. The district has never had a Latino representative, and former Rep. Cardiss Collins remains the only woman to have served the district.
Home to neighborhoods such as Little Villa, Oak Park and the Loop, IL-7 spans 68.4 square miles and is the same district that former President Abraham Lincoln represented. The population is primarily Black, followed by white, Hispanic and Asian residents, respectively.
The district has experienced elevated and intense ICE activity during what the Trump administration called Operation Midway Blitz last year. Additionally, there is a wide income gap between areas since the district incorporates neighborhoods from the South and West side of Chicago.
The following vignettes give an overview to each candidate in alphabetical order by last name.
Anabel Mendoza
Lifelong resident of Chicago and daughter of Latino immigrants, 28-year-old Anabel Mendoza wants to focus on the working people of IL-7 and build a strong, equitable district that transcends generations.
Seeing her parents work hard and still struggle financially growing up motivated Mendoza to work toward improving her community. She is currently the communications director at United We Dream, a youth-led immigration network focused on immigration rights.
“I have not had to study the affordability crisis to understand it,” said Mendoza. “I’ve lived it.”
Mendoza has three main campaign pillars: Addressing affordability, promoting social and economic justice, and supporting public health and safety.
Two core affordability areas Mendoza said she would address at the federal level would be to raise the federal minimum wage – which has been $7.25 since 2009 – “closer to $30” and prioritize the expansion of federal grants for entrepreneurs from underrepresented communities.
“There are so many brilliant ideas and brilliant people and minds that are right here in the seventh district,” said Mendoza. “We need to be able to bring the resources from our federal government back locally.”
Mendoza supports reparations and the abolishment of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as a way to move toward social and economic justice in IL-7. To promote public health and safety, she would focus on ensuring students receive the resources – such as school counselors and access to college-level courses – they need to feel supported, which she said will facilitate their growth and benefit the community.
Mendoza believes that her youth allows her to maintain a solid moral compass, and her years of experience in the immigration rights movement in communications and media relations positions have shown her the needs of her district and how success relies on strategy.
“We have so many diverse communities who call the seventh district home,” said Mendoza “And whoever sits in this seat – and I certainly hope that it’s the people of this district to elect me to represent them – but whoever is the leader of this seventh district needs to be one that unifies through action, not just through words.”
Jazmin J. Robinson
Human resources professional Jazmin J. Robinson, 38, initially planned on only supporting an IL-7 candidate, but decided to run herself after seeing what she considers a lack of strategy on candidate websites.
“In corporate America, we have to have a strategy,” said Robinson. “We have to have a business proposal. We have to show proof of concept. And so I knew I wanted to be involved.”
Robinson’s core policy is the H.E.A.L. Act, which she created using her knowledge of benefits and doing constant research to educate herself on state and federal policies.
The act focuses on free universal healthcare; economically accessible education and child care; access to the government by banning PAC and lobbyist money; and promoting livable wages and growth opportunities for small businesses.
“I understand people just don’t believe in the government and they have apathy,” said Robinson. “I’m gonna need [them] to step out of the way, because there are some of us who are still fighting, and I’m gonna need [them] to just vote. If you can’t fight for it, don’t hate on it, because you’re just helping the one percent by saying it’ll never happen.”
Growing up Mexican-American, Robinson experienced racism but did not let it deter her from being in spaces with people who held different beliefs than her or disrespected her heritage. Believing she should “love thy neighbor,” Robinson is excited about potentially being able to uplift and support IL-7.
Robinson believes her work in HR has given her a great understanding of how to develop and deliver successful strategies to ensure folks receive the benefits and living wages they deserve.
“I think just to have the ability to help more than I am doing right now would be really rewarding,” said Robinson. “And it also would just be an incredible honor to take this seat, because I don’t take that lightly either. People are truly trusting me with their lives and their livelihood, and I would take that responsibility. It would be a huge honor, and I would not disappoint them.”
Felix Tello
Executive engineer Felix Tello, 62, immigrated to the U.S. and naturalized when he was 21, quickly falling “in love with the constitution” afterward. He decided to run for representative after hearing of Davis’ retirement last year.
Tello’s campaign centers on five acts that individually address executive overreach, the economy, immigration reform, autonomy and human rights, and community needs. He also promotes his app, Vote Our Way, as a form of “direct democracy” where registered voters can share how they’d like their representative to vote on congressional bills.
“I’m taking an oath to follow your voice,” said Tello. “It is not my agenda. It is your agenda that I’m following. I’m a representative. I represent you in your agenda. I don’t represent myself in the agenda.”
Tello described how he has seen people get elected to Congress and become influenced by special interest and lobbying groups. He explained that he “cannot be bought” and would represent his constituents. Felix sees candidates who want to ban PACs as “foolish.”
Through meeting with different immigrants in IL-7, Tello said he recognizes that they are scared and tells them what precautions they should take. His Immigration Reform Act criticizes mass deportation, describing how to maintain the economic benefits of immigration while addressing crime.
“I’ve structured it in a way that doesn’t let them cut in line,” said Tello. “And it doesn’t necessarily need to lead to citizenship. I’m quite sure if you talk to most of the Latinos that are undocumented, they would be dumb and happy just to be able to be here legally and be a resident and never have to think about their citizenship.”
During an interview with the Latino News Network, Tello criticized Mendoza and Robinson, who are both Latina.
“They say they’re pro Latinos and stuff,” said Tello. “And, I hate to say this, but they don’t know shit about the Latino community.”
Tello said he understands the path of an immigrant in the U.S. and would represent every community in IL-7 equally.
Three candidates vie to become first Latino Representative for Illinois’ 7th Congressional District was first published on Illinois Latino News (ILLN) and republished with permission.
ILLN is an affiliate of the Latino News Network, a bilingual, bicultural news organization serving Hispanic and Latino communities through a national platform and nine statewide outlets.
McKenna Sweet is a recent University of Washington graduate and current freelance journalist who primarily writes science and community pieces.
Keep ReadingShow less
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth (left) and Admiral Charles Bradford "Brad" Cooper II, Commander of US Central Command, speak during a press conference at US Central Command (CENTCOM) headquarters at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida, on March 5, 2026.
(Octavio Jones/AFP via Getty Images/TNS)
Republicans aren’t willing to call the war in Iran what it is
Mar 15, 2026
Let's state the obvious: We’re at war with Iran.
My evidence? Turn on your TV. U.S. forces, working with Israel, killed the supreme leader of Iran and many of his top aides. We sunk Iran’s navy and destroyed most of their air force. We bombed thousands of military sites across the region. President Trump, the commander in chief, has demanded “unconditional surrender” from Iran. He routinely refers to this as a “war.” Pete Hegseth, who calls himself the secretary of war, also describes this as a war daily, such as last week when he said, “We set the terms of this war.”
The truth that we are at war is so simple, only politicians and lawyers could make it seem complicated.
Indeed, a slew of Republican legislators insist we’re not actually at war. House Speaker Mike Johnson: “We’re not at war right now. We’re four days into a very specific, clear mission and operation.” Florida Rep. Brian Mast: “Nobody should classify this as war. It is combat operations.” South Carolina Sen. Lindsay Graham: “I don’t know if this is technically a war.” Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin: “This isn’t a war. We haven’t declared war.” Florida Rep. Anna Paulina Luna: “Strategic strikes are not war.”
Pearl Harbor was a strategic strike too.
Then there’s the claim that we’re not at war with Iran but Iran is at war with us. This is half true, insofar as Iran has been committing acts of war against the U.S. since it took our embassy staff hostage in 1979. But waging a war in response doesn’t make it any less of a war.
One is tempted to invoke George Orwell’s “1984,” in which the existence or nonexistence of war hinges on what the Ministry of Truth (or Truth Social) puts out on a given day. But nothing so literary is at play. This is (mostly) legalism run amok.
The main reason congressional Republicans reject the W-word is simple. If it’s merely a “combat operation” or “strategic strike” in response to an “imminent threat,” then the president has the authority to do it without congressional approval. If it’s a war, then it’s arguably illegal and unconstitutional within the framework of the War Powers Resolution or the Constitution itself, because under the Constitution declaring war is the sole responsibility of Congress. And the last thing this Congress wants to do is take responsibility for anything.
This at least partly explains why Trump insists he had a “feeling” Iran was about to attack us. He has even suggested that Iran was just weeks away from having a nuclear weapon and that he prevented an imminent “nuclear war.”
The War Powers Resolution — nominally rejected by every president since it was passed in 1973 — was intended to restrict the president’s ability to use force without Congress’ consent. It backfired. It says the president can respond militarily to threats as he deems necessary, but then must go to Congress within 60 days for approval to continue hostilities. The result: Presidents have a free hand to wage war for roughly two months, unless Congress stops them.
But congressional Republicans don’t want to stop Trump. That’s tactically defensible, if you believe this war was necessary. But the tactic forces Congress to say, in effect, “Don’t believe you’re lying eyes. This isn’t a war.”
For those who only vaguely remember what they learned in high school about the War Powers Resolution — or for that matter, the Constitution — this riot of legalism only fuels confusion.
But there’s another factor driving the evasion. Trump made the idea of staying out of “forever wars” a central tenet of America First. There’s no textbook definition of “forever war” — always a ludicrous term — so you can understand why some people believed it was code for “Middle East war” or just plain war of any kind. The irony is that Trump could make a plausible case that this war is allowable under the Authorization to Use Military Force George W. Bush received in 2001. But symbolically that would mean Trump is continuing Bush’s “forever war.”
Regardless, Republicans aren’t just under a legal clock to get this thing over with, but a political one too. Polling shows that Americans, including many Republicans, have no thirst for a long conflict, which makes sense given that they were not asked to prepare for this war at all. Hence, the insistence that this war will be short and tidy.
The problem is that Iran knows this. Which is why they don’t have to win, they just have to ride out the bombings until the public or Trump loses patience with this very real war.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.
Keep ReadingShow less
A memorial in Tyrone honors residents who served in World War I.
Photo by Jay Paterno.
Selling War Like a Brand Is Disrespectful to Those Truly in Harm’s Way
Mar 15, 2026
Each day in America as late morning approaches, families of service members stationed in the Middle East probably grow nervous as nightfall nears seven time zones away. On military bases or aircraft carriers, pilots are fueling up and taking off for missions over Iran. In countries across both sides of the Persian Gulf, civilians await the terror of missiles and bombs whistling through the darkness.
Back home, a mother worries about her son in his plane. A spouse, with a young child, worries about their service member while balancing the everyday stresses of holding a family together. At night, the seriousness of war emerges, and the distant drumbeats pound amid the silence.
All those miles away, United States service members, both women and men, have already been wounded or killed. And all those miles away, missiles and bombs fall on innocent people, young and old, who have nothing to do with the ambitions or
In America, we have an administration posting videos on social media platforms with clips from movies, video games, and animated films. Thirty-second clips, based on fantasy with high-energy music, were used to both justify and excite the base for war. “Epic Fury” warfare is being packaged with a slick name and social media clips like influencers trying to sell us clothes, drinks, or vacation destinations.
It is a calculated sales job that is disrespectful to the solemn conduct of war.
Thomas Jefferson once wrote, “I hope our wisdom will grow with our power. I hope that we understand that the less we use our power, the stronger it will be.” Over two centuries later, the use of war power is made easier because we’ve walled off a segment of our population from the actual costs. But if we look, there are reminders everywhere.
The words written in The Gettysburg Compiler on July 7, 1863, should still haunt us: “Every name…is a lightning stroke to some heart and breaks like thunder over some home, and falls a long black shadow over some hearthstone.”
There is an incredibly powerful scene in the movie “Saving Private Ryan.” A mother of four World War II soldiers is busy in her kitchen doing the routine tasks of an ordinary day. We see a U.S. Army car driving up the winding, dusty lane to her farmhouse, and we know the men in that car carry devastating news that three of her sons have been killed. Her head is down as she washes dishes in the sink, so she doesn’t look out the window to see what we see.
In her reality, her sons will all remain alive until that car arrives. But with that approach, that moment will forever change everything in her life. How you wish that car never arrived.
As her dogs bark, she looks up and sees the car make its final turn toward her house. Her face reveals a reluctant and tragic understanding that something horrible is coming. She walks quietly to the door, opens the screen door as the officers’ car comes to a stop. As a chaplain gets out with the officers, she falls to her knees on the front porch without a word.
This is the reality of war.
Years after our wars, names are engraved in stone or cast in bronze on memorials in small towns and big cities, marking our history. In towns like Bedford, Bellefonte, Boalsburg, Tyrone, or on campus at Penn State, we see them. The people who carried these names are largely lost to history, but their names represent lives cut short by the horrors of real war, rather than an alternate reality of slick imagery. The Lt. Michael P. Murphy memorial at the Veterans’ Plaza on Penn State’s University Park campus. Photo by Jay Paterno
A man named Alexander Russell, killed just nine days before the end of World War I, is remembered in Boalsburg. In Bellefonte, Alexander Green’s name appears for his Civil War service as a member of what was then known as the 6th U.S. Colored Regiment. At Penn State, Lt. Michael Murphy’s name is remembered for his ultimate sacrifice just over 20 years ago in Afghanistan. These men were taken in the days of youth, when, but for the waging of wars, their futures of possibility seemed to extend before them.
All wars represent humanity's failure. Whether the wars were just or not, it no longer matters to the individual soldiers who have lost. Their loss struck sorrow in the hearts of friends and families, leaving people wondering what if and what it all meant.
War is tragic for others, too. Innocent civilian casualties are no less tragic, and the long black shadow also falls on their hearthstone. No memorial will bear their names, and we dismiss their deaths all too easily.
The slick packaging of war, the dehumanization of people who do not look like us or worship like us allows us to go on accepting and cheering propagandized marketing campaigns. We even have a sanitized way to describe the death of innocents using words like “collateral damage.”
Through the noise, bots on social media hammer home the “patriotic” imagery. The videos of missiles striking targets become a voyeuristic source of entertainment. But that is our world in 2026. Everything is about selling “the brand” from consumer products to entertainment to war.
Nothing could be more dishonest or disrespectful to the people who are truly in harm’s way. The people who serve this nation and innocent people on the ground are caught in a crossfire stoked by small people with big egos who find it all too easy to order planes, soldiers, bombs, and missiles into “action.” They rain destruction and death on our fellow human beings.
But back home, there are families for whom the potential cost of war extends far beyond higher gas prices.
As people of faith in this country, we pray that the means of war be employed sparingly and only in the cause of what is just, after all other serious attempts at good faith diplomacy are exhausted. One hopes that the people in power come to a more respectful understanding and portrayal of the horrible power of war. False bravado is the refuge of cowards.
Tonight, as the bombs fall, man’s inhumanity to man continues. The lights of explosions in the dark flash to expose the terror in the eyes of those trampled under the hooves of the four horsemen of the apocalypse: War, Death, Famine, and Conquest.
And somewhere, a stone cutter is sharpening his tools, and bad news may be making its way to the home of a mother or a spouse. And innocents are crushed under the weight of a war waged by others.
Selling War Like a Brand Is Disrespectful to Those Truly in Harm’s Way was first published on StateCollege.com.
Jay Paterno is a former quarterbacks coach for Penn State University, ran for lieutenant governor of Pennsylvania in 2014, and consults on a variety of issues.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More
Trump’s ‘Just for Fun’ War Talk Shows a Dangerous Trivialization