Talk:Magen Tzedek/Archive 1

Archive 1

I have added the section titled CONTROVERSY to present a second view of the Hechsher Tzedek. I am surprised to find out that some people are so intolerant that would remove the section. I hope we are all open minded enough to allow every party express their ideas.

C. Carbonera

The Controversy section added is merely a personal attack on the character of Rabbi Allen, not new information on Hechsher Tzedek itself, and therefore has no place in an encyclopedia. The many links included on this page to newspaper articles already show there is a difference of opinion. There is no need to add personal speculations about motivations and connections.

Open minded is one thing, standing by while someone is defamed is another. This page is for factual information about Hechsher Tzedek, Hechsher Tzedek came about due to ... by ... from .... It is not a forum for airing grievances against individuals. Such things should be discussed elsewhere and indeed have been.

As far as my 'rosy' view of Hechsher Tzedek? I have only contributed a newspaper link to this page. My opinion about Hechsher Tzedek is expressed elsewhere since I realize that an encyclopedia is not the place for personal opinions.

YaelYael2370 01:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

>> The many links included on this page to newspaper articles already show there
>> is a difference of opinion. There is no need to add personal speculations about
>> motivations and connections.

I disagree. Indeed, it is common to find in an encyclopedia a compendium and re-collection of different points of view from different references. That is exactly what has been printed here. All the quotes come from articles published in the New York Times, The Jewish Press, and Kosher Today. All the points were written in relation to the Tzedek Hechsher. As a matter of fact there is no such thing as a Tzedek Hechsher but an idea in the makes by Rabbi Morris Allen. In this context, it is very appropriate to print all the questions written. In particular, you may not like the statements, but all are quotes from very respectable sources, and do belong in an article as this one. Please, be tolerant. Right now, the main person behind the Tzedek Hechsher is Rabbi Morris Allen.

In particular, statement number one of the controversy has nothing to do with Rabbi Morris Allen, but it is a legitimate question raised by The Jewish Press. In addition, point number two is indeed a fact that is related to the very conception of the Tzedek Hechsher.

All the points related to the controversy are very active and it is the people that do not want to face this questions that take it personally. I don't see any of the statements as a personal attack on Rabbi Morris Allen. On the contrary, they are stating the opinion of many. For example, the statements made by Rabbi A. Zeilingold have been quoted as Rabbi Zeilingold's opinion. And not as anything else. It is a very valid question whether or not there is an antipathy by group lead by Rabbi Morris Allen to create the Hechsher Tzedek towards Agriprocessors.

You have to be open to the truth and cannot delete this section because the statements offend you. We are in search of the truth. Your attitude is not helping. I have, following your suggestions, rephrased some of the questions. The statements are not meant to be a personal attack on Rabbi Morris Allen.

C. Carbonera

==============================================================

RESPONSE TO LATEST EDITS BY OTHER USERS

Shalom Yael,

I believe that we are converging to some common ground.

I am not trying to undermine the character of Rabbi Morris Allen. Indeed, many people that I know speak well of him. If my original note gave that impression, I apologize; it was not my intention. As you probably noted by now, I did rephrase some of the statements.

I read your criticism on your blog, and do grant you that I did put down a statement without providing the proper references. My mistake and I do apologize for not providing the sources. I could not find the actual source that states that Rabbi Morris Allen was actually receiving money from Unions and PETA. I believe this was actually not printed or I can't find the source.

But, the question of whether the rabbinical group is actually qualified to judge in matters of labor has been raised in the Star Tribune where Rabbi A. Zeilingold referred to the members of the team of people working towards the Tzedek Hechsher as "amateurs". Let me point out that this is indeed the opinion of many in the Orthodox community.

Another question that was removed and has been raised by the Orthodox community is if it is the business of a religious group to make halachic decisions on matters of labor. This is a very valid question. To give you an example, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein made a halachic ruling that declared all milk supervised by the FDA as Kosher. That is, the governmental regulations are such that there is no need to have a mashkiach supervising the production of milk for Kosher certification. In the same manner, as Rabbi Zeilingold stated, the laws of the U.S.A. and the regulation and enforcement by the Government are such that the Orthodox community does not see a need for religious supervision in matters of labor. The original question is valid. But, for the sake of Achavas Yisrael, I will not push the issue; although, I do ask you to see the validity of my question and reinstate even if you don’t agree with my questions.

I read your blog, and cannot agree with you on the section where you state my references as "personal opinion". I stand by my original statement: these are the opinion of the Orthodox community in General. Keep in mind, that, when Pamela Miller interviewed Rabbi A. Zeilingold, she presented Rabbi Zeilingold's comments as the "Orthodox View". Hence, I am not writing my personal opinion. I am presenting, under the Hechser Tzedek, the view of many Orthodox. (You questioned from where I quoted the text "some people".) These statements do not belong in a blog, but are part of an encyclopedic or academic forum. Blogs are for those who want to present their personal opinions as you stated.

Sincerely, C. Carbonera

I appreciate your response and the changes to the article. We will obviously disagree on many things but certainly that does not need to preclude civility on either of our parts.

I was wondering if you could point out the reference for this interview you mentioned and the promises made by Rabbi Allen to Rabbi Zeilingold. I didn't see these talked about in the Star Tribune article you referenced, although I did see Rabbi Allen's statement about the validity/non-validity of claims.

"In an interview, Rabbi Zeilingold stated that he was promised by Rabbi Morris Allen, who leads the group that is working on the creation of the Hechsher Tzedek, to visit Agriprocessors with the sole purpose to determine whether the allegations against Agriprocessors by the Forward in an article written in May 2006 were true or false. Although in a recent interview, Rabbi Morris Allen admitted that he could not validate all the claims of the article published by the Forward, he has not made a clear point on the pitfalls of the article as he promised Rabbi Zeilingold."

As you know, many articles have been published already so this is an easy thing for me to have overlooked. If you could point out the right article for me, you would save me having to read through all of them again. Thank you in advance for your assistance.

24.245.58.200 14:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi User:24.245.58.200, (A name would be appreciated)

As I wrote before, I believe that we are converging to a more stable discussion.

The actual statement that answers your question can be found in Friendship of Orthodox and Conservative Rabbi in Tatters Over Kashrus IssuesKosher Today, Jan. 2007 . The actual line is "From the Forward article, and from Rabbi Allen's deceptive behavior, it was obvious to me that Rabbi Allen, Victor Rosenthal, and the other members of the Conservative commission did NOT visit Agriprocessors in order to evaluate the validity of the Forward's May 26 attack on Agriprocessors.". Rabbi Zeilingold used the phrase “did NOT visit Agriprocessors in order to evaluate the validity of the Forward's”, because was told by Rabbi Morris Allen that they were going to visit Agriprocessors for that reason only.
Ccarbonera 17:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the name. I typed in my name with my first comment I added on this page and then Wikipedia added my name again. This last time I didn't add my name and it did not either. I can't seem to win....
Yael
Yael2370 01:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for providing that reference. Now since we are able to converse here, perhaps you wouldn't mind answering a question for me. I have always been curious about this. When the first Forward article was published, as I said on the blog, I was quite skeptical. My take was that this was some white collar do-gooder shocked to death to find out that there are people out there who actually have to do manual labor in order to make a living and that manual labor isn't all that glamorous. I would have continued to hold that view except for the fact that it wasn't long afterwards that your article came out which went way the other way, where everything is pictured as perfect in Postville. All workplaces have problems, all communities have problems, if your article had taken a more moderate path, admitting that there are some problems and then discussing solutions either already implemented or under consideration, I'm right there with you. Instead I'm left to ponder what it is you didn't want me to find out.

I've always wondered why you felt the need to be, IMO of course, the exact opposite of the Forward reporter. I think readers like to be treated as intelligent people who will weigh what is said and think for themselves and that this would have been the better approach to take in your report. I'm sure in any other setting you would say the same. When I removed your additions here you were not at all pleased. Was it because you did not like someone trying to cover up/silence what you and others consider to be valid concerns? If so, then I think you understand totally my reaction to your report, and perhaps I have some understanding as to why you wrote the report that you did.

(If you don't think my question is appropriate here and/or you do not want to get into this please feel free to remove it. I will not be offended in the least nor will I take it as a sign that I 'scored' some point or other such nonsense.)
Yael
198.70.22.217 03:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Shalom Yael,
>> I've always wondered why you felt the need to be, IMO of course,
>> the exact opposite of the Forward reporter.

I reported what I saw, and heard. I did not choose to take the opposite view of the reporter Nathaniel Popper. I vouch for every word that I wrote.
To be honest, after reading the article from Nathaniel Popper last year, I thought of becoming vegetarian. But, after I interviewed with 20 people or more, I felt cheated by Popper, and made an oath to myself to fight against those lies.
Let's discuss Popper's article a bit. Consider the title of the article “In Iowa Meat Plant, Kosher ‘Jungle’ Breeds Fear, Injury, Short Pay “. From the beginning, Popper is telling you that Agriprocessors breeds fear, has serious safety issue, and short pays their employees. Let's analyze some of these accusations that are further developed in his article.

• Short Paying employees is a crime; a very serious accusation.
• Injury implies a dangerous work environment in the plant. That would be terribly reckless on the part of the employer.
• Breeds Fear implies a type of slavery.

I found quite the opposite. A normal work environment was provided to employees. The management staff never once prevented us from interviewing anyone we chose. I picked people at random and talked to them. Someone trying to cover-up a serious crime would be very secretive. The article written in the Forward is a libel.
I suggest you read an article written in The Economist approximately a year ago in May or June. (I apologize, but can't remember the details.) That article describes the meat industry,and the role that people from South America play in that industry.
Ccarbonera 05:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up about the article, "Of meat, Mexicans and social mobility", Economist.com June 15, 2006 (I'm assuming this is the article of which you spoke?) I admit I haven't read through it yet, but "The Economist" is quite a pro business periodical so I'm not sure how much credence I should give to this article. I'm not really big on trusting business leaders to paint an accurate picture of working class lives so I found several other articles which I will also be reading in order to hear other points of view as well.

I have several other comments, of course:

Headlines always try for sensation. It is annoying, but a fact of life. I pay them little attention. Short pay, risk of injury, fear in the workplace? Sounds like a pretty typical blue collar workplace these days. IMO, the reality of being a worker in 2007 means being in a very vulnerable position as opposed to employers, and no, I do not see unions as any answer since they are now virtually powerless to help their members. The basic allegations made by the Forward are common across the working world, so for me it is only a matter of degree; how bad is it really.

You say you wrote what you saw; I don't know you personally, but I will go with this. So....not one person had a complaint other than one person desiring a pay raise? Where I work if I interviewed 20 people I could easily gather 100 or more complaints and some of them would even be valid. Didn't that surprise you that you received zero complaints? I have to admit, it does surprise me. My experience has been there are always things workers don't like, always improvements that can be made, and most workers are only too eager to share these when asked.

Based on your visit and personal interviews, you see no problems in Postville and see everything in the workplace as normal. Why then are you opposed to Hechsher Tzedek, a hechsher which would tell everyone else that this is indeed true, there is nothing wrong in Postville and we can eat our food with clear conscious? Do we all have to tour every kosher food manufacturing facility and every meatpacking plant in order to see for ourselves if things are OK or not? Would not Hechsher Tzedek be a vindication of what you are saying, that all is well and the Forward article is just a bunch of hype to gain attention? The article was published, people are wondering, you said you wondered yourself. Why not let our minds be set to rest on this once and for all?

Thank you for continuing our conversation. And please, if you have any other articles which you think would be valuable to our discussion, point them out to me. I will read them.

Ccarbonera 08:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yael
198.70.22.217 09:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

(And just as a disclaimer in case others decide to read here. Hechsher Tzedek isn't about Postville; it's about kosher food in general. We are discussing Postville because that is the plant C. Carbonera toured and wrote about for the Jewish Press.)
Yael
198.70.22.217 09:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Shalom Yael,
Yes, that is the article on The Economist. Thanks for looking into it; I would like to get a copy of that article.
>> "The Economist" is quite a pro business periodical so I'm not sure how much credence I have to disagree. The Economist is a British magazine. From my point of view, it is the most neutral magazine and serious that I have read. (It is better that The Times, U.S. Newsweek, etc.) Opinions in The Economist are not influenced by our National politics. I have read articles that are extremely critical of the Bush Administration, and of U.S. Companies in general. I view the editors as very pro bono in a sense. Look at their ads. Many times they advertise positions for professionals in Africa, Asian, and South America.

>> Based on your visit and personal interviews,
>> you see no problems in Postville and see everything
>>in the workplace as normal.
As a normal meat plant, it has normal meat plant problems - I can't see why Agri has to be singled out.

>> Hechsher Tzedek isn't about Postville; it's about kosher food in general.
very well! Every article written on the Hecksher Tzedek has only negative remarks about Agriprocessors. The articles never mention that Agri has been working very hard to improve their safety trainings, that they buy protective equipment for their employees, nor that they work closely with OSHA to meet and improve the work environment of their employees. Who is making it a Postville issue?

Yael's Reply (Just to separate us here.)

I will give the article a fair reading. I am heading out to visit my son at camp so will be away from the internet a few days. I have printed out this article and quite a few others for my reading pleasure while I'm away.

I'm sure that is frustrating when you see nothing unduly wrong at Agri to see it talked about constantly. Since Agri is run by Jews to produce meat for Jews, don't you think it should be held to a higher ethical standard than just the average meatpacking plant? And if it meets that high standard already it would get the Hechsher Tzedek and none of us would have to wonder anymore.

For myself, I'm not saying there is anything wrong or not, I want the seal to remove all doubt.

I haven't seen Rabbi Allen or myself make Postville an issue on the blog. Newspapers keep bringing it up, but I don't see us doing so. Other than here, I make it a point not to mention Postville. It truly is not about Postville, even if that was the place the idea originated. I come up with ideas all over the place as a result of things that are happening. It doesn't mean those ideas can only be tied to the place from which they originated, if that makes any sense.

Again, thank you for the interesting conversation. It is nice to just ask you questions directly rather than having to read whatever it is newspapers decide to print.
Yael2370 14:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I see that on the same day changes were made on this page to remove certain questions about Rabbi Allen's motivations, these same questions appeared on the Kashrut page minus Rabbi Allen's name. Perhaps we have a bit of a shell game going on here? 24.245.58.200 04:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment

I originated this article based on the NYT's article. As an encyclopedia article it is a bit shaky, as it is, at present, little more than an interesting idea. Whether it will become a part of Jewish culture remains to be seen. Pretty doubtful really. Conservative Judaism is not called conservative for nothing... The potential scope of Hechsher Tzedek extends beyond meat to all food, indeed to all work. Milk production is often carried on under the most miserable conditions by illegal aliens in the United States as is that of vegetables and fruits. It is hard to imagine such a revolutionary approach, but that someone even proposed it gives me an optimistic feeling. Fred Bauder 18:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Controversy section

It would not be objective to allow the side supporting a new proposition to present it's case in the article without allowing the opposing concerns to be presented as well. The controversy section of the article should not be removed.

75.161.159.173 06:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Baruch Katz

Badly written

This article is badly written and badly organized. I tried to make some edits and a bot reverted them. Somebody should rewrite this article. 70.107.0.34 (talk) 05:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

These two edits [1] [2] made today include some dubious-seeming content: "The union has... actively attempted to coerce companies into bringing in their union." (unsourced); changing "This view ignores" to "This view clearly appreciates" without a source or justification; "most of the adherents of the movement are not particularly concerned with the laws of Kashrut" (again unsourced), etc. I've therefore reverted both the edits pending discussion here. Perhaps some of the factual content is accurate but much of it is unsourced, and some of the wording certainly needed changing (see here, for example, on use of 'clearly'). If you disagree please feel free to explain why. Best, Olaf Davis | Talk 10:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Agudath Israel response

We presently list responses by the Orthodox Union (unfortunately a titre personnel rather than as a body). I note that the other main Orthodox body in the USA, Agudath Israel of America, has also come out against HT. AIA has no official internet presence, which makes it harder to find a good source, but this seems a good enough source.

AIA's perspective is that while bad working practices or financial chaos are completely undesirable, they don't actually affect the status of the food. It might be unethical to purchase meat from an unscrupulous butcher (subtext: AgriProcessors), but the meat may be consumed lechatechila. The AIA statement contains some strong language about the blurring of the lines between kashrut and ethics. JFW | T@lk 13:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Links

All the links are pro-hekhsher tzedek. Could we get some that aren't?

Schoolsout (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1