Bruin ignores context, workers in union coverage

By Michael Manville

Anyone reading the Daily Bruin’s coverage of the
ASUCLA/union issue could be forgiven for thinking that the sole
purpose of the labor movement is to deprive students of their
programs. Prior to last Friday’s ASUCLA vote, which endorsed
the efforts of 131 non-student workers to organize under a union,
the Bruin ran a fear-mongering front page article (“Union
could cost ASUCLA dearly,” News, May 10) that spoke
extensively about the projected $500,000 to $1 million cost of
unionization, and about the various cuts in student services that
may be required to pay for it. Precisely one sentence in the
article was devoted to the plight of the workers themselves, who
have worked for years at minimum wage without benefits, job
security or vacation time. The rest of the article was devoted to
potential losses to the student body.

This was followed on Monday by an editorial, which argued that
in the case of ASUCLA, “the rights of the workers conflict
with the rights of students.” It again discussed the
million-dollar price tag of unionization, and again said that all
of us would suffer for it through lost programs or increased costs.
Students, the editorial said, may have to use a referendum and vote
to increase their own fees.

These are daunting implications. But nowhere in the article or
the editorial were the numbers put in context. Yes, it may cost $1
million to unionize the workers. But ASUCLA takes in $70 million a
year. And if $1 million to pay for 131 employees sounds
extravagant, then try $795,000 for six employees with benefits and
deferred compensation. That’s what the top six executives at
ASUCLA took home in 1999 (they probably make even more now).

The Bruin, of course, didn’t bring that up. The paper had
reported, a few days earlier, that UCLA professors””mdash;who make
over $100,000 a year””mdash;are having trouble affording life in Los
Angeles. The average salary of an ASUCLA worker is less than
one-tenth that of a tenured professor, and unlike professors the
workers have no benefits. Yet the professors were written about
with concern, and the workers with scorn.

More insidious than the lack of context, however, has been the
paper’s divisive tone and its assertion that a living wage
for workers will threaten student welfare. Any students who think
otherwise, the editorial said, are just “allowing themselves
to be used,” by the union. This is an old ploy: there are two
groups on campus that ASUCLA has influence over””mdash;the students
and the workers””mdash;and The Bruin is pitting them against each
other. The union, meanwhile, gets portrayed as a sinister
interloper, manipulating minds for its own ends.

This is nonsense. Neither the workers nor the union pose a
threat to the students. If paying 131 people a decent wage is going
to bankrupt a $70 million organization, then the organization is
top-heavy and mismanaged and deserves to go under. And let’s
say, for the sake of argument, that the worst-case scenario comes
to pass, and we have to vote to increase our own fees. This would
be unfortunate, but how lucky for us that we have a choice. How
lucky that we can choose to spend our money or not, that we can
decide which services we need or don’t”“ that we have,
in other words, something to sacrifice. The workers ““ who
earn minimum wage, who have no benefits or job security ““ do
not have this option. They have nothing more to give.

The Daily Bruin seems to have lost sight of this. It wants us to
think only of ourselves, and what we might lose by giving others in
our community the dignity of fair wages. It wants us to forget
their suffering and think instead of our own bottom line. Such
thinking does not befit a newspaper; it is selfish and shameful and
deserving only of contempt.