Keep Taco Bell on campus, out of dispute
By Nick Dang
Nov. 23, 2003 9:00 p.m.
In the words of a famous talking Chihuahua, “Yo quiero
Taco Bell.” Indeed, for I suspect I’m not the only who
still wants his chalupas.
For those who don’t know, activists are fighting to remove
Taco Bell from campus because the company buys tomatoes from
Florida packing companies accused of unfair labor practices. While
the tomatoes in question aren’t served at UCLA, the Social
Justice Alliance wishes to rally support for labor reform by
persuading the Associated Students of UCLA to terminate its
contract with the fast-food giant. Admittedly, losing one franchise
won’t put much of a dent in Taco Bell’s coffers, but
many students still support their removal as a symbolic call for
change.
I respectfully beg to differ.
Firstly, the tomatoes in question aren’t served at UCLA.
The campus franchise obtains its tomatoes elsewhere. What sense,
then, does it make to demand Taco Bell’s removal? Terminating
their contract will only hurt the university, which owns the
franchise and has little influence over corporate policy. As one
student told the Daily Bruin, “”¦the issue should be
confronted, but I don’t think Taco Bell should be taken away
just because of some tomatoes.”
Furthermore, I question the point of targeting Taco Bell at all.
The company does not set tomato-picking wages in southern Florida.
The real labor dispute is between the Coalition of Immokalee
Workers and their employers at Six-L’s Packing Co., Inc. As
Taco Bell spokesman, Laurie Gannon told the Inter Press Service,
“Our policy is not to interfere with other companies’
labor disputes … This is not about Taco Bell “¦ they are
targeting Taco Bell because we’re nationally (recognized). We
don’t set prices for labor and tomatoes.”
In addition, though there’s no question that paying tomato
pickers 42 cents per 32-pound basket is appalling, calling for the
chain’s removal from campus is downright excessive. Unfair
labor practices are an unfortunate result of capitalism and
corporate tyranny, but ASUCLA has more of a responsibility to the
student body than to the tomato workers of southern Florida. From
what I can tell, the majority of students aren’t ready to
give up their Gorditas just yet.
Taco Bell is still reportedly the second most popular eatery on
campus next to Panda Express. This suggests that most students
remain undeterred by the company’s labor practices and, thus,
do not support the chain’s eviction from campus. After all,
the tomato issue was brought to UCLA’s attention way back in
March of 2002, when the Daily Bruin ran an article entitled
“Group rallies against Taco Bell chain.” Since then,
students have still continued to line up by Bruin Walk for a cheap
bite.
If the Social Justice Alliance wishes to protest Taco
Bell’s business practices, they should mount a grassroots
awareness campaign coupled with a boycott. Though I commend the
organization’s socially conscious motives, by engaging ASUCLA
in seeking Taco Bell’s removal, the Alliance ignores the
student body’s many interests and opinions.
A campus-wide boycott campaign would allow for greater
stakeholder participation by letting the students decide on the
issue with their own dollars. If the majority of students find Taco
Bell’s practices unjust, then their money will do the
talking. Right now, their dollars say otherwise. The franchise
services 2,000 to 3,000 customers daily. As one letter to the Daily
Bruin notes, “the silent majority are voting with their
pocket books to keep Taco Bell on campus.”
Succumbing to the whims of a special interest group is unfair to
the student body. The university should decide against terminating
Taco Bell’s contract.
In the meantime, I’ll be running for the border.
Dang is third-year political science student. E-mail him at
[email protected]. Send general comments to
[email protected].
