Triangle Fire Analysis

738 Words3 Pages

In April 2013, Matthew Yglesias, an American Economics Journalist proposed the people of Bangladesh would not appreciate having stronger safety standards in their country because it would cause undue harm economically. He asserts Bangladesh should have different lower standards for safety because they are a poorer country. Most of the people involved in the New York tragedy of 1911 also known as the Triangle Fire, would not agree with Matthew Yglesias on his assertion that lower economic status would be an indication of lower safety standards in factories. Namely, the workers, the union leaders, the progressive reformers and the political leaders would all vote for higher standards commiserate with the United States. The only ones who would not argue with Yglesias are the owners of the Triangle Factory with their vested interest, their own problems of multiple fires and accusations of safety neglect. They would agree with Yglesias. This is evidenced by the documents in The Triangle Fire by Jo Ann E. Argersinger. …show more content…

They lied and said they had the doors were “always unlocked.” They were not trustworthy witnesses. According to Rosey Safran, a Jewish immigrant from Austria, said, “If the union had had its way, we would have been safe in spite of the fire, for two of the union’s demands were, adequate fire escapes on factory buildings and open doors giving free access from factories to the street. “ The owners already went up against the union with safety demands. Most likely they would have agreed with lower safety standards as Yglesias asserts, considering they didn’t care about the sanitation and purity of the workplace in its current

Open Document