DEAR EDITOR:
As is happening throughout America, so now it comes to Gilroy:
a
”
modest proposal
”
pushed by Roger Rivera, president, United Food and Commercial
Workers Union Local 423
– San Jose (letters, Oct. 28).
DEAR EDITOR:
As is happening throughout America, so now it comes to Gilroy: a “modest proposal” pushed by Roger Rivera, president, United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 423 – San Jose (letters, Oct. 28). It’s purpose: to shame Wal-Mart, with a carefully-worded and totally misleading shuck-and-jive (shuck – “… something of little value;” jive – “… glib, deceptive or foolish talk”), into opening its doors to union propagandists/agitators under guise of “serving the employees.”
This “modest proposal” 1) implies Wal-Mart is unwilling to “hold a free and fair election of its employees;” 2) demands the proposed “election” ground rules “will be agreed to by the company and its union” and “will be monitored by a mutually agreeable group” which must include “labor leaders” who “will have the ability to enter the store, to speak to workers outside the presence of supervisors,” 3) dictates Wal-Mart guilty of specific acts against employees and must “agree not to intimidate and harass its employees, threaten to fire or otherwise discipline pro-union employees, hold mandatory propaganda meetings on company time, or otherwise apply pressure to those employees,” 4) and commands Wal-Mart must “agree that it will voluntarily recognize the union …”
What a self-serving and sanctimonious union drivel!
This “modest proposal” is standard union manipulation to force from Wal-Mart locally what unions nationwide have failed to do: control of Wal-Mart employees and thus Wal-Mart. This “modest proposal” suggests a “free and fair election” but dictates the union must control its structure; demands union access to “enter the store” to propagandize employees; demands Wal-Mart “… give employees the right to meet with union representatives at the work site”; demands … demands … demands!
Mr. Rivera, your “modest proposal” offers nothing to employees. It offers nothing to Wal-Mart toward enhancing its operations. It offers nothing about the responsibility of the union in dealing with the money/power it will gain at Wal-Mart employees expense.
That’s the basis of your union’s interest in Gilroy’s election – to put drones in power to harass/intimidate Wal-Mart into accepting your “modest proposal.”
The issue is simple: your union doesn’t care about Wal-Mart employees, only the dollars they represent through union dues and other charges. Your union doesn’t care about Wal-Mart policies/ procedures toward employees, only how it can twist those into something evil and malicious from which your “modest proposal” will seem meaningful/beneficial.
Your union wants three things from Wal-Mart it’s not getting now – money, control, and fealty. The most hypocritical part of your “modest proposal” – you talk of a unionized Wal-Mart that will “bargain in good faith.” That should be a two-way street, Mr. Rivera, but unions such as yours never bargain in “good faith.” They put down extortive demands and, if not met and whether employees support it or not – they call a strike!
In a Dispatch story published Oct. 28 and headlined “Unions anticipate grocery strikes in Northern California in 2004,” the Associated Press quotes Tami Lewis, a representative from UFCW Local 588 in Northern California, who is now in Southern California to assist with the strike: “Whatever happens down here, happens up there. It’s going to be ugly.”
Your “modest proposal” is something ugly you’ve spilled into Gilroy’s election process to divide rather than unite residents, Mr. Rivera. Does that make you and your union drones proud!
James Brescoll, Gilroy
Submitted Friday, Oct. 31
