At any rate, there is a defence to be be mounted of a broad approach to literacy work. Clearly two lines of defence are possible. One defence is asserting literacy as a human right. The other is asserting the importance, even for economic reasons, of programming forms which attract people to learning in a wide variety of situations, in and out of the workplace, and produce a generally more literate society. The choice of how much to emphasize each of these defences in public discussion must be made by literacy advocacy organizations.

A related question concerns the meaning of the term "workplace literacy." It is sometimes used to refer to machine- or job-specific reading and writing, and sometimes to extend to a broader technical literacy, questions of health and safety, and union participation and general education. There is a very common tendency in work-related training to tighten up the connections between curricula and specific job tasks.¹⁸⁵ However, in literacy the case is often compellingly made that learning that begins very broadly is central to learning particular skills. One could argue that there is now a consensus among those experienced in the field that programs should "consider both organizational and worker needs," and that program planning should involve more than management and the educational organization involved; it is also crucial to involve the union (where there is one), or even have it take the lead; and that participants must be involved, as "successful programs ... consider both organizational and worker needs."¹⁸⁶ The balance between job-specific and more extensive learning is still being worked out in practical experiments, policy deliberations and collective bargaining.¹⁸⁷ The differences between approaches to workplace programs should be stated and elaborated; the results of different practical experiments should be documented; and questions about the organizational and political processes through which "workplace literacy" is defined should be carefully studied.