Win for hypocrisy, not workers

By Micheal Rubin

In a style similar to Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic's, Locals 34 and 35 claimed victory this past month, even as Yale clearly came out on top (Yale officials are too polite to gloat). Basically, the unions agreed to what Yale had offered for the past several months, if not the past year.

Long before the unions marched out of the talks, Yale tried to negotiate a way for more fast-food-type operations on-campus to help stop the flight off-campus. Yale showed good faith by approaching the union leadership first, but Local 35 President Bob Proto refused to compromise. As a last resort, Yale instituted the flex dollar program. The unions tried to close down three local business and one chain store, all of which employed hard-working New Havenites. (When I brought this up to a GESO member, she sneered "capitalist") This was not a problem for Proto, who hails from North Haven. He ignored Yale's real motives, and whipped up rhetoric for a protracted strike. The outcome of the unions' Orwellian victory? Flex dollars stay, and fast-food enterprises will come to campus, with non-benefit starting wages around seven dollars per hour. There is a concession: These new employees will automatically be union members whether they want to or not, so Proto can have union dues automatically taken from their paychecks.

Is mandatory union membership a big deal? Who wouldn't want the honor of being in the union? Perhaps the people who crossed picket lines, or those who didn't because of peer pressure or the potential for harassment and violence. After all, while the union trumpeted inane fears of violence from extra security guards, they forgot to mention that their parent union, the Hotel and Restaurant Employees International Union, pleaded guilty to having ties to the mob and is still on probation. Oops, fact just sneaked in past the censored and inflammatory versions of events in the union's newsletters. Sorry, Bob. Just ask the union to comment on how many of their members didn't pay their dues when they had a chance. But the sacrifice of personal liberty in a closed shop is another thing entirely.

What else did the strikers accomplish? They have 10-year job guarantees. However, Yale offered guarantees several months back, but the union leaders ignored them and kept holding rallies, self-righteously demanding "justice," and trying rather unsuccessfully to stir public anger towards Yale. What came of this? First of all, the unions claim that Yale is hurt and pressured by all the bad publicity. Yeah, right. How could Yale have caved in to union pressure when the terms reached were what the University was offering before the rallies? Unfortunately, the bad publicity only hurt the city. What business would dream of coming to New Haven with the rhetoric coming out of 34 and 35, Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, and random clergy members?

Proto and Local 34 President Laura Smith were never serious about negotiating, or they would have agreed to what Yale offered months ago without a strike. Remember, it was the unions who called off negotiations and went to the press when all this started. If these conditions were so bad then, why do the unions claim victory now? Yale was never out to crush the unions, only to achieve some flexibility. Otherwise, why would they have offered the job guarantee so early? However, breeding mistrust and a polarized atmosphere is in the unions' financial interest and the personal interests of Proto and Smith.

It seems that the strike was prolonged because of Proto and Smith's misguided ambitions. They relished the media coverage. Proto enjoyed getting his picture taken next to Jesse Jackson and AFL-CIO President John Sweeney, who labelled Yale an "evil" institution.

Current leaders have a good model. Local 34's former chief negotiator, John Wilhelm, used his bully pulpit during the 1984 strike to move up in the international union's bureaucracy, where he gets fat on working peoples' salaries. Proto and Smith care little about Yale, Yale's workers, or New Haven. (Proto, why don't you move here?) If they did, they would not have subjected their constituents to an unnecessary strike which achieved nothing but lost wages and gained only negative atmosphere for enterprise.

Back to Opinion...