See more of the story

Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.


I agree with many of the points Laura Yuen makes in her piece "The problem with #QuietQuitting" (Sept. 25). It is a privilege to partake in or discuss this concept in a culture that valued work above all else for too long. However, I encourage people to dive a bit deeper into the research before writing this trend off as a mere rejection of "hustle culture."

Yuen pointed out that Gallup, the leading researcher in employee engagement, called "quiet quitting" a crisis. Since she defines the term as "workers refusing to go the extra mile to do work for which they're not being compensated," readers might infer it's a crisis for organizations, as it's detrimental to their bottom line. In reality, Gallup finds that actively disengaged employees report feeling more anger, stress and physical pain than unemployed individuals. By contrast, Anthony Klotz (who coined the term "Great Resignation") defines "quiet quitting" as a refusal to engage in citizenship behaviors — activities that aren't captured in a job description, such as mentoring, helping out a struggling colleague or working to improve a company's culture.

Americans are redefining their relationship to work in ways we haven't seen since World War II. In periods of growth and unrest, people are desperate to label how they're feeling; perhaps we're clinging to an imperfect term that means something different to everyone. Instead, maybe we can shift our energy (and ink) from disparaging the term to something more constructive, like coming together to design work that people love — however they define it.

Leah Phifer, Minneapolis

The writer is founder of WhyWork.


Why not focus on issues that affect you reliably often?

I'm trying to identify why abortion rights would be so important that they would become the single factor in determining someone's vote.

Considering the multiple issues involved in evaluating candidates, it's worth looking at why this one, with its relatively minor chance of occurring to someone, is elevated to that status over the combination of other topics such as crime, taxes, etc., that have much more frequent effects on daily lives.

It certainly is an emotional issue. Anyone who has had, or even considered, an abortion has gone through her share of stress and trauma. That is understood.

Beyond situations such as rape, or arguments about when life begins, if we look at it practically, how many abortions might any one woman intend to have? I expect the common answer is "hopefully none."

Thus, are abortion rights an insurance policy for the failure of birth control products or methods? A backup plan in case of an "accident"? Is that the fear that drives this?

Fear isn't always rational, but it is very real. The challenge is finding a way to alleviate that fear so people can consider all the political issues of the day in making their voting decisions.

Dale Kovar, Mayer


I have to respond to the Sept. 22 letter to the editor giving kudos to a Sept. 15 writer stating that Sen. Lindsey Graham's proposed bill allowing abortions up to 15 weeks would be a great compromise, and that Democrats would never go along with it. The letter cited the reason as that Democrats would think the idea radical and that they approve of abortion up to the moment of birth. Baloney! Every GOP colleague asked about Graham's proposal disagreed with it. So not just Dems. Remember the argument that abortion should be up to the states? Anti-abortion radicals wrongly portray abortion as someone wanting to get rid of their baby. Do you understand that a miscarriage is an abortion? Removal of the fetus because of an ectopic pregnancy is an abortion. And there are other calamities that also result in abortion. If you find out that the baby you planned for and want with all your heart and soul has something unrepairable wrong with it and it survives to birth, will need a dozen surgeries just to survive to the next surgery, and will be in constant pain for its entire short life, is it not compassion and love to have an abortion? Now that Roe v. Wade has been overturned, states that have implemented restrictive laws against abortion make that compassion illegal.

All of the above problems can happen anytime in the pregnancy, not just in the first 15 weeks. That's why those who support abortion don't agree with the stupidity of a specific week limit. Any decision about abortion is between a woman and her doctor. It is not a decision the government should be a part of. And until you have personally been in a situation where you've had to make the hard decision yourself, you have no clue or right to say how others should handle it. No one wakes up at 40 weeks and decides abortion is going to be their form of birth control. That is just a complete lie that has been tossed around by anti-abortion radicals.

I find it interesting that the writer comments that "survey after survey cites that most Americans do not approve of abortion up to the moment of birth," yet neglects to mention that those surveys state that upward of 70% of Americans support legal abortion. Maybe anti-abortion radicals should read the whole survey. And how about the party that keeps spewing the need for smaller government stop trying to make it bigger by inviting it to stick its nose where it doesn't belong? Oh, the horror!

Vicki Pond, St. Louis Park


Turns out fancy new stadiums can't replace old-fashioned skill

I recall reading and hearing in the now-distant past that if we built an expensive baseball stadium, the Twins were sure to win the World Series. The key was the new ballpark. Well, the stadium is up and ... nothin'. By the way, I'm still waiting for my invitation to the People's Stadium, the other expensive project that was certain to produce a national football championship. Every time I go there the guys that run it want a big pile of money before they will let me come inside.

Jack Sheehan, Eden Prairie


In the Sept. 10 edition, an article about Twins and Vikings games on the same day equating to major traffic issues for downtown Minneapolis, Metro Transit spokesman Drew Kerr was quoted saying, "People are ready to use transit to get to big events" ("Twins, Vikings games plus road closures will mean backups"). This statement, in the context of the reported $500 million shortfall in funding to complete the Southwest light-rail extension, made me think. The Blue and Green lines pass and serve very well the following places: U.S. Bank Stadium (for the Vikings and concerts), Huntington Bank Stadium (for the Gophers), Target Field (for the Twins and concerts), Allianz Field (for Minnesota United) and CHS Field (for the Saints). All of the sporting/concert venues listed here were able to be built because of the existence of the light-rail system. Maybe some thought should be given to coming up with a mechanism for those teams who are so well served without the expense of building and operating parking facilities to contribute a one-time payment to cover some or all of that $500 million deficit?

Paul Linnee, Bloomington