I don't claim to be an expert in the art of negotiation or the most savvy of politicians. However, recent events in the union controversy have puzzled me. It would seem to me that Locals 34 and 35 would wish to ally themselves with students to increase their voices by adding a rather influential supporter to their cause.
However, the unions have chosen to abandon this course of action for a second option-to disrupt the lives of the students to such a degree that they will demand that the University appease the wishes of the union at all costs, so that finally, peace can be restored amid the turmoil.
Annoyance tactics rob the unions of their humility and take away any hope for a sympathetic appeal. Rabble-rousing is as destructive to labor negotiations as violence is to political protests. Had others seen their way fit to follow such courses of action, bus boycotts would have been blundered, sit-ins silent, Tiananmen toothless, and Gandhi's fight forgotten. Non-aggressive solidarity is the most effective course of action in a struggle of this kind.
Turning their backs on the menial administrative tasks that are necessary in order for Yale to run at peak efficiency is one thing. But deliberately obstructing our education is another. Forcing members of the Political Union, who wish merely to further their education in an extracurricular environment, to cross an aggressive picket line is immature. And forcing the guests of the Union to cross these lines on national television is even more ridiculous. To imply so vigorously that these people's desire to conduct an intellectual debate necessarily connotes their hostility towards the plight of the Yale worker is a logical fallacy, not to mention a cheap ploy. Now the Political Union is in danger of having to postpone a pair of guest speakers until after the negotiations have been concluded. It seems that they are not willing to risk the negative publicity for the sake of an intellectual interchange. That does not mean to say that I will respect their decisions should their apprehensions get the better of them. But it is not the place of the physical labor of this campus to dictate by their actions which speakers will be heard and which lectures will be attended.
Even within the realm of the normal curriculum, many classes have been moved to farther-away, less-convenient locations, and some have met less regularly. Even once a class agrees when and where to meet, there is no guarantee that anyone will be able to hear what is being said over the whistles, shouts, bullhorns, and other noisemakers. What is the purpose of being so loud? It is destructive and annoying. It causes resentment and frustration. Perhaps they hope that the frustration will be channeled towards the Administration. But why should it be? I haven't seen one member of the University's negotiating team standing on Beinecke Plaza with a megaphone.
I cannot comprehend how the Locals feel that these actions are helping their campaign. They have turned me at least from another fairly neutral, too-busy-to-care, bystander into someone eager to see that these nuisance tactics don't gain them anything but pink slips and perhaps a fine for violating local noise ordinances. This is no longer a matter of the validity of union claims or the voicing of their economic concerns. Rather, it has become a public display of their lack of political savvy and their ignorance of their audience.
Francisco del Valle, CC '97, is president of the Yale Political Union.
Copyright 1996, The Yale Herald, Inc. All rights reserved.
This article may be freely distributed electronically, provided it is distributed in its entirety and includes this notice, but may not be reprinted without the express written permission of The Yale Herald, Inc. Write to herald@yale.edu for additional details.