What was the point of highlighting that this individual was an immigrant? Why did the headline not simply state that a “worker” died at an Oklahoma poultry plant? Is the focus of the story the dangerous working conditions, or that this individual was an immigrant?
Perhaps it’s simply an attempt by the copy editor to twist the headline into something salacious enough to generate more clicks…
The article talks about more than just working conditions. For instance
While the larger poultry industry in neighboring Arkansas has given rise to worker centers and advocacy groups that push back against unsafe conditions, Oklahoma’s still sizable immigrant workforce has less support
[…]
Immigrant workers are often less inclined than native-born workers to report unsafe working conditions or injuries because they fear losing their jobs or being deported, said Jose Oliva, the campaigns director for the HEAL Food Alliance, a coalition of organizations that represent food industry workers.
[…]
“This industry is really skilled at constantly seeking out who is the most vulnerable or exploitable population, and how do we bring them in,” Stuesse said.
So, as I suspected: some copy editor juiced the headline to generate more clicks
Edit: thanks for the clarification
…but that’s the opposite of what they are saying.
That’s not what I read
Read more? Like I don’t get what you’re missing here. They gave you multiple examples of why the article is specifically about how immigrants are more vulnerable to abuse and injury. It’s kind of central to the point
I’m clearly not the one here who has trouble understanding what they read
And because I don’t wish to continue this childish argument, you’re blocked
Lol