Medina on UFW: No Regrets
I'm still in the midst of a border journalism conference in Arizona and will spend all day Wednesday in Mexico; so posting will remain light.
During the few free moments I've had available I've been keeping up with the news as best I can. Reporter Miriam Pawel's Los Angeles Times series thumping on Cesar Chavez' United Farm Workers continues to hold my attention. My cellphone has been buzzing from friends who want to talk about it.
I found Tuesday's installment on how Chavez --in the last 15 years of his life-- purged the union of opponents, dissidents, organizers and generally anyone who challenged his domination to be a gripping and wholly depressing tale. It's a maddening story that should anger any clear-thinking person on the Left; as it was precisely the Left that Chavez drove from the union, helping to seal its overall fate.
Pawel's series relies heavily on stinging quotes from one-time Chavez protege Eliseo Medina who sat on the UFW board until 1978 and who was once considered by many to be Chavez' most logical successor. After leaving the UFW, Medina achieved an admirable career in other unions and today sits as Executive Vice-President of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).
By pure coincidence I saw Medina today. He was one of the speakers I had scheduled a few months ago for the border reporters' conference I have organized for this week. So I asked him today if he had any regrets about how the L.A. Times' articles have turned out. After all, his quotes were being used as some of the heaviest ammo against the course the UFW has chosen.
Answering my question, Medina grimaced, shaking his head. "No," he said. "This all had to be said. It was time."
It's an intriguing response from Medina. The UFW joined with the SEIU last year in forming the new Change To Win Coalition, though the latter did not take the step of actually leaving the AFL-CIO as Medina's union did. For Medina to now openly speak out so critically about one of his union's allies can only signal the growing recognition among the rest of labor that the UFW has rendered itself to be rather irrelevant. Sad. But true.
January 10th, 2006 at 11:53 pm
The last paara would be less confusing if you had “former” in there in place of “latter”!
January 10th, 2006 at 11:53 pm
Damn, I meant “para”.
January 11th, 2006 at 5:42 am
And where’s Dolores Huerta in all this? Is she marginalized as well?
January 11th, 2006 at 6:55 am
I think Medina is prolly pre-empting any Rep/ anti-union “gotchas” about Chavez. And rightly — it’s good he thinks it’s time for honesty.
Everybody who supports the Left should remember how often, when Leftists get power, they purge their group of opponents and dissidents.
Just like Leftist Dems today are purging themselves of anybody: who supports democracy in Iraq enough to support war (like Hitchens); who supports tax cuts and smaller gov’t; who supports human rights (to life), even for unwanted human fetuses.
Reps, including so-called RINOs, are willing to accept anti-war folk; bigger gov’t folk; and even pro-choice folk. In order to win. (What do Reps stand for? … winning?)
I wonder when the Dems will reduce their hate-based purging of the non-100% agreement, and start trying include all those with 51% or more agreement?
January 11th, 2006 at 8:41 am
“Just like Leftist Dems today are purging themselves of anybody: who supports democracy in Iraq enough to support war (like Hitchens); who supports tax cuts and smaller gov’t; who supports human rights (to life), even for unwanted human fetuses.”
This is a baldface pack of lies. Smaller government? Then explain to me, liberty man, how is it that government grows faster under Republicans? The Dems are purging no one from their side, but on the other isle, well, there’s a whole lotta shakin goin on. The only hate around comes from the likes of dad here. It’s his meme not ours.
January 11th, 2006 at 9:51 am
“Just like Leftist Dems today are purging themselves of anybody: who supports democracy in Iraq enough to support war (like Hitchens)”
If anybody needed a clue as to how unhinged and clueless certain commenters are in this space, the above is surely the ultimate evidence. Hitchens was a “Dem” ? Never knew that….thought he spent the latter part of the ’90s trying to bring down Clinton – in league with some of the lowest life on the planet, like Goldberg, Coulter and the Olsens – and supported the wacko, ultra-left “Green” challenge to Democrats. Hitchens is the kind of leftist who has always hated Democrats and, like his ex-buddy Cockburn, takes pleasrue in trying to bring them down, no matter the cost. (Not that anybody but a handful of folks in “coastal and academic enclaves” with trendy magazine subscriptions were paying much attention until the far-right began to find him useful.) Also, if the “Dems” are purging themselves of people who supported the war, how come one of them ran for President in 2004 on a platform of “more troops” and Hillary is the biggest fundraiser in the party.
Weird shit…some folks truly believe that by repeating their delusions enough they rise to the level of competent discourse. Not true.
January 11th, 2006 at 9:58 am
Also, I have to say that anyone who was taken aback or shocked at the information in this Times series hasn’t been paying attention for about 25 years. Chavez’ introducing wacko Synanon crap and the purges inside the UFW along the lines of a personality cult, not to mention their total ineffectuality as a union, have long been public knowledge. As was the fact that Synanon itself has long been a cult that had degenerated into something just this side of People’s Temple. Oh, and Tom, the difference between wacko demagogues and cults on the left and the one’s on the right is that the leftists haven’t had their own long-running television shows to hector gullible, God-fearing folk in the heartland and scoop up those widow’s mites via 800 numbers.
January 11th, 2006 at 10:07 am
“hasn’t been paying attention for about 25 years”
That may be stretching the timeline…but I’m certain this stuff has been coming out in various news articles for close to 20. I’ve never researched this issue so there’s no special reason I would have more than common knowledge of the UFW’s degeneration, but I remember reading very disturbing reports about Chavez and Synanon long ago in local papers. The purges were also reported – although I’m sure this report has added detail and some insider’s perspectives. Maybe it’s a Bay Area thing, because there has been lots of local reporting on the insanity that turned Synanon into a violent, vicious cult for well over 20 years.
January 11th, 2006 at 10:13 am
“And where’s Dolores Huerta in all this? Is she marginalized as well?”
Duh! The only thing Huerta’s done politically for many a year is turn up to get awards from well-meaning liberals, raise money for projects that are meaningless and speak at half-assed events like ANSWER rallies. Let’s let go of any sentimentality about folks like her. She was courageous – more than I’ll ever be – and stepped up at an important time, but it’s over and she’s been cannibalizing her own and Chavez long-defunct legacy. She’s the Latino Coretta Scott King. Sorry…
January 11th, 2006 at 10:52 am
I want to make one other observation from reading these articles so far…it appears that this destructive downward spiral within the union wasn’t simply the aftermath of them hitting a wall with their organizing efforts, facing increasingly high hurdles and then turning inward and ultimately imploding, but that that some of the most effective, professional organizers were purged when they were still able to achieve some success. I also have to say that the “social movement” aspect of Chavez’ strategy, including the stuff like housing coops and radio stations makes an enormous amount of sense as an adjunct to effective union organizing. It’s too bad it apparently got turned into an “eithor/or” by a guy who – to be honest as well as fair – probably had become mentally ill under the stress of being a revered movement leader. Most of our heroes are as flawed as the rest of us – and often appear more so because every aspect of their personality becomes magnified under the intensity of the missioin, the spotlight and the demands of living up to what is ultimately a myth (and I don’t mean that in any disparaging sense, because myths are more prevalent and more important than we generally acknowledge) – but it looks like Chavez became a classic paranoid who was so surrounded by yes-men/women, people who idolized him and apparatchiks with their own ambitions that he spiraled into something pretty ugly and took the union with him to a large degree. Tragic and too human.
January 11th, 2006 at 2:35 pm
Damn shame to lose sight of the ball like this, but in America the cult of personalty is all-encompassing regardless of political affiliation. In the end though it’s really all about us individually, and there seems to be no limit on the fodder one takes to support it.
I still say with an illegal workforce as the majority UFW is guilded by the market moreso than most.
January 11th, 2006 at 4:01 pm
Haven’t seen today’s installment yet, but am not expecting a happy ending. I am glad to see Marc got a response from Eliseo Medina. Unlike reg, I would definitely like to hear from Dolores Huerta as well. Reg dismisses her mistakenly, I think, if only because she is a visible, frequently honored person of the left. What she says will resonate in various communities.
I wonder where this will lead. Chavez may have passed on, but he is a very contemporary presence. Our town has a park, a boulevard, a museum and cultural center and I’m not sure what all named after him. Our state has a paid holiday honoring his birthday. He is rightly honored both for his achievements in empowering the most powerless American residents, and the righteous spirit by which he and his union accomplished it. What effect will this series and the surrounding discussion have on this legacy, which has a present impact? What effect should it have? Should the Farm Worker Movement projects be condemned? Investigated further? Supported in spite of conflicts of interest?
Don’t know the answers, but I believe that Cesar Chavez will and should continue to be a role model for people interested in seeing that farmworkers and other people doing dirty, backbreaking, soul-killling work organize to better their lives. Obviously the newly-spread information from these articles, to the extent they are not countered convincingly, will muddy if not distort that image. If that happens, it will be an even sadder day, because many people, Mexican heritage and otherwise, have gained strength and focus from the Cesar Chavez/UFWOC story.
January 11th, 2006 at 6:08 pm
As usual Reg is on to something. I have been reading articles on the UFW’s shortcomings for a quarter century and it began when Chavez was still alive and kicking. Seems he wanted to run a movement rather than a union with predictable results. I’m afraid the UFW has long been the favorite cause of Westside liberals who give awards at Proletarian gatherings at the Beverly Hilton and feel noble boycotting grapes. How sad. I would note that Chavez took a hard line on illegal immigration since he understood how an unlimited supply of exploitable labor would render moot any “progress” on working conditions and wages. But we don’t talk about that now. Do we?
January 11th, 2006 at 6:20 pm
WRT Dolores Huerta: Marc’s reporting from this summer (linked in his first post on the LAT series) paints a very different picture of her current role than reg’s comment, which are over the top.
And hard to read. Years ago I spent the afternoon near Dolores Huerta at a Central America demonstration; shortly after I left, SF police dragged her away and beat her so badly she had to have her spleen removed.
Anyway, please re-read Marc’s LA Weekly article.
January 11th, 2006 at 6:30 pm
“Just like Leftist Dems today are purging themselves of anybody: who supports democracy in Iraq enough to support war (like Hitchens); who supports tax cuts and smaller gov’t; who supports human rights (to life), even for unwanted human fetuses.â€
Hey Liberty Day, what the heck are you talking about? Democracy in Iraq—the whole country is in a state of disarray—it is more chaotic now then it was two years ago.
There have been about 1,500 complaints lodged against the elections, including about 50 serious enough to alter the results in some districts. Any crisis involving the elections could set back hopes for a broad-based government that would include minority Sunni Arabs as well as secular Shiites. But if the Sunni Arabs believe the elections were fraudulent; could any government, be considered legitimate and diminish the insurgency. Any serious crisis involving elections could set back hopes for a broad-based government that would include minority Sunni Arabs as well as secular Shiites–distrust in the outcome of the elections would only incite continued insurgency and could ultimately lead to a civil war. No end in sight.
Since the Iraq War there has been a non-stop crime wave. The most highly educated Iraqis–doctors and college professors have been the victims of kidnapping for ransom. The police and military are ineffectual and have not caught a single person responsible for these crimes.
Smaller government is an oxymoron when you describe the Bush administration–their spending taxpayer’s money like a bunch of drunken sailors and are intruding into the privacy of individuals under the pretense of protection and intimidation.
Yes, conservative Republicans are concerned about FETUSES but NOT CONCERNED about children living in poverty. Why don’t you guys take your Viagra—and stop worrying women’s reproductive systems.
January 11th, 2006 at 7:37 pm
“But we don’t talk about that now. Do we? ”
I tried.
January 11th, 2006 at 7:39 pm
Well, they are pro-life, as long as it’s before birth and after death. In between isn’t their territory.
January 11th, 2006 at 8:08 pm
Mark,
You are absolutely right–caring about the LIVING is not as important as being obsessed about microscopic cells and spirits; I guess you would say that they are a bunch of BIBLE THUMPING HYPOCRITCAL SELF-SERVING PROPAGANDERISTS.
January 11th, 2006 at 8:32 pm
I’m not trying to villify Dolores Huerta but keep her in perspective….and I remember the incident in San Francisco, which does nothing to repair her image in my mind as a credible labor leader in the last two decades. So far as I can tell (and I’ll admit to not being expert in this, but only reading some of the same stuff others are) she stood by while Chavez descended into some kind of downward spiral and turned the UFW into an ineffectual personality cult. That doesn’t work for me. And sentimentality about these people – despite their heroism – is bullshit and counterproductive IMHO.
To put my own attitude toward iconic figures on the left in perspective, I should add that I pretty much hate the Martin Luther King holiday…because it has turned a great, complex, incredibly heroic, brilliant, flawed and very radical figure into a sanitized cardboard poster/plastic jesus who’s conveniently filtered quotes are gleaned by scumbags like Shelby Steele and G.W. Bush to push their agendas that run counter to the flesh and blood legacy of King. As far as I’m concerned, all of the Chavez Boulevards and King Avenues are detrimental to considering who these men were, what their contributions really were, what their limitations were and where we stand today in relation to both their real and percieved legacies. I’m not putting King’s complexities at the same level as Chavez, because King – the real King – is one of my true heroes – a human hero who means more to me than a fantasy hero. I have a much bigger problem with Chavez and the way he treated the people who devoted themselves to him and the UFW cause than I do with any of King’s weaknesses as a human being, but I just want to make a point about how turning people into icons who’s mission’s aren’t accomplished – or only partially – who still live in our fairly recent memories and whose political legacies are still part of current political discourse isn’t helpful. The best of the UFW articles in the Times is the one on Medina. That his talents and energy were ultmately thrown away by the UFW – with at the very least complicity by Huerta and others who had allowed Chavez to become a cult figure – is inexcusable. I’m sorry, but romanticizing these people is just crap. That doesn’t detract from my respect for what they did, in fact, accomplish or their sacrifice. But neither do I want to detract from the unsung heroes and heroines who made the mythos possible – especially when they’ve been cast aside or abused in the process. I think it’s pretty clear that in it’s later incarnation, the UFW leadership did just that. They don’t deserve a pass. Ultimately it’s not about them or stories we tell our children, it’s about unionizing workers.
(This is probably a mess – hard to read – but it’s the best I can offer on the subject and I feel strongly that it’s reasonably close to “true”.)
January 11th, 2006 at 8:53 pm
Incidentally, what I glean from Marc’s article on Huerta’s current activities is all well and good, but it strikes me that it’s little and it’s late and that, as the one figure who had stature nearly equal to Chavez, she didn’t offer the leadership or intervention that was needed, when it was needed. This is my opinion from the sidelines, but I don’t see any evidence in her comments to the Times that she played anything other than enabler to Chavez when his leadership began to self-destruct. She sounds like she’ll still just rationalize anything Cesar did as some kind of response to vague threats to the union. Maybe all of the people alluded to in these articles were malevolent influences, emissaries from the Comintern or whatever, and the UFW lawyers were selfish bastards for asking for pay amounting to $12,000 a year, but the idea of running a union like it’s a religious cult just strikes me as bizarre. Huerta may not have had the ability to turn things around from inside and was understandably loath to go public against her beloved comrade, but if this is true, it’s better to try to comprehend what actually happend than to ignore it.
January 11th, 2006 at 9:47 pm
One more time, for the record, Hitch was not “purged” from the left — he “purged” himself, as even he will tell you.
And yes, reg, he was very much a leftist. Which is precisely why he was so disgusted with the state of the Democratic Party and the Clintons.
Both his critiques of the “left” wing of the ruling class vulture — along with those of Cockburn — were essential during the Clinton years. For one thing, without them, The Nation would have been very close to becoming a “voice and echo chamber” for the White House, ala The American Prospect at the time.
Frankly Eric Alterman’s butt-sucking sycophancy during Clinton’s reign was absolutely disgusting.
It’s true that both Cockburn and Hitchens sought anti-Clinton allies outside “the left”. Cockburn wisely sought out and found allies among constitutionalists, libertarians, gun-rights advocates, isolationists and paleoconservatives and Hitch chose to make common cause with Coulter, FreeRepublic.com, Horowitz, AEI and every manner of anti-Clinton Republican and neocon that there was.
January 12th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
Reading all this UFW stuff is heartbreaking…It’s one of the hardest to organize.
January 12th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
I’ll give Marc Cooper his props (proper respect), I just spoke to a few old school Chicano activists…who were ready to call the whole LA Times story full shit, until they heard you were the original journalist on the case.
January 12th, 2006 at 12:21 pm
Triple A – I guess one of the problems I have with Hitchens (and I still read his non-political stuff avidly, because he’s one of the most knowledgable, wittiest critics on the planet) is that I don’t think he really has much in the way of politics. I can’t remember ever reading a piece by him on anything other than Beltway bullshit or his travels abroad that had political content. His argument with the ruling class really does strike me as mostly that he’s not in it – or at least that they don’t listen to his advice. His connection to any issues that actually impact working class people strikes me as distant and detached at best, unless of course the question of war arises. Unfortunately, he seems to have ended up on the wrong side of that one and finds the ruling class vultures rather admirable. I just can’t take his politics very seriously – and never really have.
And yeah, Clinton sucked…but not because of the sucking. I could care less about that crap and Hitchens turned it into a crusade. Silly man in many ways.
January 12th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
Washington’s birthday is not a holiday so much to honor George Washington the man, but to honor the symbol of the struggle against colonial governance and to establish an independent republic. Lincoln’s birthday honors, I believe, the sacrifices citizens on both sides of an imaginary border suffered to bind together the republic, and to erase its most persistent stain, slavery.
Martin Luther King Day and, at least in CA, Cesar Chavez Day, honor not so much the men but the struggles in which they participated to gain full citizenship for descendants of slaves and immigrants from Mexico who had all been hit with the full force of institutional indifference before King and Chavez focused attention on the injustice. That is why we have holidays to honor flesh-and-blood, original sin-beset people like them.
Reg’s rejection of this tendency toward hagiography is well-taken, but it is what we do. And by “we” I don’t limit the characterization to Americans. Look at how much of the world viewed Haile Selassie. I am not pro-hagiography, I tend to fall on the Charles Barkley side of the “role model” controversy. But I am very concerned with what happens when an icon, particularly one honored by the powerless or excluded, is severely tarnished. [I know...that's the problem with having icons in the first place, but I am discussing how humans are, not how we wish we would be...] What happens when the right-wingers in the CA state assembly open fire to de-holidify Cesar Chavez, waving copies of the LA Tribune? Do we say that subsequent errors by Chavez disqualified him from such an honor? Can we do that without showing contempt for the movement for justice he is perceived as having led?
Kids seem to seek out heroes. We often teach cultural mores by showing how certain qualities are embodied in our heroes. It has been so for at least 3 millenia in western culture. Reg, you are free to reject this weakness, but it is foolish not to expect it to survive until a later stage of human development.
January 12th, 2006 at 1:39 pm
I don’t reject it so much as want to keep it in perspective and I firmly believe that when it’s invoked too quickly it tends to embalm issues and plays into a very conservative tendency. As for “decommissioning” Chavez…I think the correct approach to that is to acknowledge that most historical figures are flawed and vote to take down the Chavez street signs when we take down all of those named after famous Anglos who weren’t perfect.
January 12th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
There is definitely a risk in enshrining anyone whose contemporaries have not passed into the ether. Your recommended position on the attack on Chavez from the right is reasonable. I really do expect to see this…this state is so rabidly divided on Mexican/Anglo issues that it is inevitable.
January 12th, 2006 at 7:59 pm
The UFW has just left the AFL-CIO and joined the Change To Win coalition. I’m not entirely sure what to make of all this. I walked about a third of the 165-mile march on the Capitol in 2002 to get Gray Davis to sign the farmworker arbitration/mediation bill. There were real farmworkers and real politics there, not a lot of talk about making money in real estate. On the other hand, the law so hard won — and protected by Arnold Schwarzenegger, incidentally — has barely been used.
January 12th, 2006 at 11:00 pm
First of all, Medina hero-worship aside, the Pawel series had little new to say, and her agenda was evident, in part because she said virtually nothing about the union’s post-1993 organizing attempts (e.g., strawberries in the late ’90’s, central valley grapes currently), nothing about the union’s side of things, focused on old news and somehow forgot about the growers’ constant fierce resistance and 12 years of Republican rule (bought by growers) decimating the ALRB, parallelled by open and aggravated and socially-accepted anti-union hostility legitimated by Reagan. Unlike federal labor law, ag labor in California must go through a secret ballot election run by that moribund agency; there can be no voluntary grower recognition. In that sense, the union’s decline is mirrored by labor’s decline nationwide, and in that same sense, we are all to blame who let the politics of this country slide to this miserable point.
As the greatest organizing successes in California and elsewhere (e.g., Houston) have shown, the community, not just the workers, must be organized, so the “pan-Latino” approach is actually correct. But it doesn’t work lightning fast.
I’m certain people will respond to this — if at all – by saying it’s nothing but whining and excuses — and there’s no question that the UFW and all unions can and must do better. But so must we as a society, in order to defeat or reform the Wal-Marts and Gallos of the world.
January 13th, 2006 at 2:04 am
reg: “And yeah, Clinton sucked.”
Speaking of which, there’s an excellent article in the current (Jan 16) issue of The New Republic detailing the lover affair between the Clintons and the Murdoch Media. The reason for this shocking smoochfest between two old enemies. One word. Three letters. Starts with “W” and ends with “r.”
January 13th, 2006 at 5:57 am
Just to remind all the right-wingers that that hang-out at this site.
You are whores for wealthy right-wing elites, so your “care†for wage earners is seen in this light.
Your opinion on labor issues is tantamount to asking a crack-whore about intimate relationships, after being pissed on for a 5 dollar rock.
January 13th, 2006 at 10:27 am
Eleanore kjellberg Says:
Yes, conservative Republicans are concerned about FETUSES but NOT CONCERNED about children living in poverty. Why don’t you guys take your Viagra—and stop worrying women’s reproductive systems.
——————–
a-freakin’-men to that!
January 13th, 2006 at 12:37 pm
Although the Times series was provacative, it was nothing new to many many people. Righties get their panties in a knot because it just “proves” Everything About Unions is Satanic, while lefties get all worried “Gosh should we call bs on the UFW in public or in hushed tones behind closed doors at our annual meeting”. Whatever.
The facts speak for themselves, I mean, in his later years Chavez was all about media, and about self empowerment and less about the UFW. It goes to a bigger problem though – the outsourcing of work to “non profits” and a whole non profit/contractor/whatever mess that both unions and govenrments and private sector folk find themselves in. But that’s another story.
Most people don’t care about farmworkers, anyway, be they on the right or the left, so long as the lettuce is cheap.
And despite all the howling about “illegal immigrants” the fact is not one farm is going to be shutdown and asset forfeited because they hire and pay illegals to do the work.
January 13th, 2006 at 10:29 pm
“shocking smoochfest”
Some of the stuff B. Clinton did in 1992 to enhance his chances of election were shocking. I’m not a Clinton-hater and have a certain amount of respect for her and even a bit of affection for him, but NOTHING these folks are likely to do in the arena of political opportunism is going to reach the level of “shocking” for me. If ever a dynamic duo had politics – at it’s least attractive – hard-wired into their genes, it’s Bill and Hill.
(I’ll get exercised over the differences between reasonably authentic liberals and total opportunists at the Congressional and Senatorial levels, but when it comes to Presidential candidates, I’m totally innured to the evil of two lessers.)
January 13th, 2006 at 10:30 pm
uh…not “were shocking”…it’s “was shocking”.
January 13th, 2006 at 10:39 pm
something else that’s dispiriting, but not really shocking…
http://tinyurl.com/dsnjx
January 14th, 2006 at 12:04 pm
A quote from Cooper’s latest rag on the UFW: “The prodigious fund-raising, direct-mail and PR/political campaigns of the union create the damaging public impression that California field workers are “taken care of,†that just as the movement of MLK successfully tore down de jure racism, the union of Cesar Chavez has, at least, long ago won basic, humane treatment for the campesinos of the Golden State.”
This is all in Cooper’s head, and he leads himself down the path of venom toward the UFW which is better aimed at those who are truly responsible for farmworker misery: growers and government. Not to mention media that skew the blame for that plight on people who are trying to make change but aren’t succeeding fast enough for the likes of Cooper/Pawel et al (though too fast for certain Republicans who’d like to see the UFW completely crushed and are the ultimate beneficiaries of hit pieces like Cooper’s and Pawel’s).
Cooper can’t have it both ways: UFW mailers don’t leave the false impression that the union has organized the bulk of the workforce, and Cooper certainly harbors no such impression. But he is willing to yelp about that straw man to build to a false criticism of the union. If Cooper were to instead devote his feeble energies fulltime to truly comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable, then . . . Nah, he just enjoys sowing the wind and hopes to avoid reaping the whirlwind.
January 17th, 2006 at 9:03 pm
I respected the article for several reasons:
1. The writer has a long history of reporting on the labor movement and issues. That seems valuable.
2. The length of the series was extraordinary and, because of it, the current plight and struggles that face farmworkers got a lot of public scrutiny. This series was obviously given a lot of resources and the standards and practices of a working journalist for a major newspaper gives the report that much more credibility, in my opinion. If she was “lying,” it’s something she could lose her job over. Whereas, the opinions of supporters, including mine, are just opinions. And the UFW website didn’t refute any of the quotes that were presented by former staff, instead they only focused on their current works and did not, yet, address the issues of the past. They also have admitted that the writer had access to a lot of the historical records and documents which, again, lends a lot of credibility to the report.
3. The large number of interviews that were conducted gave us a remarkable breath of first hand experiences of the UFW in the early years. That was fascinating.
4. It was informative to better understand that the UFW movement is not the same as the UFW union. In fact, the thesis of the article was that the union has not thrived on the legacy of Chavez whereas the other non-profits are doing much better. The fact that the farmworkers themselves worked so hard, sacrificed so much, and volunteers around the country gave endless amount of their time and support makes the current union efforts seem dissapointing. This was a perspective I had not heard before.
5. Like Pacifica, like any institution, the people who run it are free to change directions. Pacifica has, in my opinion, changed directions by becoming an “experiment in democracy” rather than a radio/educational outlet for intelligent discussion and analysis and debate as the original founding members envisioned. Also, like the UFW, in order to change directions people were hurt, demonized, purged, and some left traumatized and shut out of the institution they had so loved and sacrificed for. Like the UFW, the New Pacifica LSBs and PNB has very little to say about the past….they are even trying to bury our historical corporate documents, and they are not apologizing to those they have demonized and hurt. I find this a particularly fascinating and disturbing trend and I think that both the UFW and Pacifica have to learn how to confront their own internal conflicts and, at times, brutalities, with honest and humble reflection. The impulse is to load the guns, circle the wagons, call for the “real supporters” to step forward and attack. However, I think that is a mistake and I wanted to point it out, again.
6. Like any non-profit, it is important that supporters and taxpayers have a chance to analyze the way money is spent. The second installment of the report have some very hard critiques and it’s going to be interesting to see if the various charities own up to some of these critiques or simply dismiss them as “propaganda.” That will be a matter of integrity and communications, both of which are good practice in the long run. I’m especially interested in how the Martin Luther King Farmworkers Fund (now called the Cesar E. Chavez Community Development Fund) is used. It is rare for organizations to have such a large endowment and I would think that the purpose of it would be to support programs that are helping farmworkers in need. *see below
So, I’m going to disengage from this thread now that I’ve made my points. I’m sure Jim will continue to post his deconstruction of the LA Times article, and I secretly wish he would do it on a more appropriate discussion list that is dedicated to discussing issues of the day. But I do appreciate all the very interesting details that he’s brought to this discussion and I esecially glad to know about the incredible work of the Immokalee Workers projects. Like it or not, every non-profit project is going to have more or less success based on the long term focus and the unity within their supporters. For a project to become a movement (like peace on earth) the message has to be broadly supported and the tactics have to be humanist and from integrity.
Later,
Nalini
===================
[exerpt of the LA Times series "Broken Contract"
Public records paint only broad outlines of how the UFW and its related charities take in and spend their money. The leaders are able to avoid scrutiny by not indicating the affiliations and transactions between related groups on federal tax returns and inaccurately reporting that they receive no government funding.
A rough picture drawn from tax returns shows that about half the organizations' spending goes to pay employees - more than $12 million in 2004, the last year for which records are available.
About half of that is spent on employees who develop and staff the housing projects and the nine radio stations, including the latest and most successful, a hip-hop station in Bakersfield. Started by Cesar Chavez to communicate with farmworkers, the network known as Radio Campesina has evolved into a commercial success by adopting a format of mostly popular music and catering to a younger audience and advertisers eager to reach the growing Latino market.
"We want to be able to reach the younger generation, because, man, people are growing up not knowing Cesar Chavez, not knowing the Farm Worker Movement," Rodriguez said.
The Farm Worker Movement's financial strategy flows from a mission statement adopted a few years ago: Change the world by achieving economic and social justice and help 10 million Latinos by the year 2015.
"Before the vision statement, I was going crazy. I was thinking, 'I'm not doing my part,' " said Paul Chavez, who worried because his charitable efforts were not aimed primarily at farmworkers. "Now I can go to bed at night knowing that while I feel for the union and I want them to grow and all that, I understand that my contribution has to be made on the service side."
The bulk of the movement's income is on the side of the ledger that Chavez oversees. He runs the National Farm Workers Service Center, which collects rents on the apartments it owns and operates, along with fees for housing development and management, and revenue from radio ads and sponsorships.
In 2003, for example, the Service Center earned $10.8 million from managing property and $6.8 million from the radio stations and spent roughly the same amount operating those enterprises, according to financial statements. In 2004, the Service Center reported spending $1.1 million on management costs and $9.87 million on programs, primarily the housing projects and radio stations. After payroll, the largest expenses are rent, travel and interest on loans.
Chavez also heads the Cesar E. Chavez Development Fund*, which sits on almost $10 million and uses the interest to help support the Service Center and other related charities - even as the UFW issues desperate pleas for the donations that make up one-third of the union's $7-million budget.
Cesar E. Chavez Community Development Fund
Formerly the Martin Luther King Farm Worker Fund, a farmworkers services foundation set up with employer donations. Now provides loans for Service Center housing projects and supports the Service Center, the Chavez Foundation and other related charities.
Budget
Net assets: $9,817,031
Revenue: $1,212,910
Expenses: $638,059
===========
[exerpt from the Collective Bargaining Agreement between Coachella Valley Citrus and UFW]
*ARTICLE 35: MARTIN LUTHER KING FUND
1. The Employer shall, effective January 1, 1978, contribute to the Martin Luther King Fund five cents (5¢) per hour for each hour worked by all workers covered by this Agreement. Expenditures or investments of contributions shall be solely restricted to those charitable and educational purposes for which federal tax exempt status has been granted to the Fund. The contributions shall not be expanded to the detriment of the Employer. The Martin Luther King Fund shall obtain and maintain federal tax exemption and all contributions by the Employer shall be deductible under the Internal Revenue Code.
2. All contributions due herein shall be remitted, on a weekly basis, for every worker covered by this Agreement. In conjunction therewith, a weekly summary report will be submitted covering the payroll period for which contributions are due. The summary report shall include the workers’ name, social security numbers, total hours worked by workers, total number of workers and amount of contributions.
3. The monies and a summary report shall be remitted to the Martin Luther King Fund, Post Office Box 80762, Los Angeles, California 90080, or such other address as designated by the Administrator of the Fund.
January 26th, 2006 at 9:21 pm
With a staff of 400, and paying an estimated $12,000,000 to 400 staff, the UFW is no longer a movement; it is a grouping of institutionalized entities. The goal of any rational institution is to perpetuate its existence and protect its base of income.
What made the farmworkers a movement in the 60’s and 70’s was 1) the labor of thousands of volunteers who believed that farmworkers needed a union and thus worked long hours for their room and board and $5 weekly stipend, 2) the public’s willingness to act on behalf of the farmworkers by boycotting and , being responsive to boycott staff’s requests 3) the farmwokers willingness to act in concert to either strike or boycott. .
The Farmworkers Movement grew alongside the Anti-War and Civil Rights Movement. It was part of the times. However when the time came to turn the movement into an effective labor organization supported by the dues of its members, the leadership stumbled and ultimately fractured. Cesar wanted to perpetuate the idea of a movement excluding ideologues of all types (the exception being a belief that Cesar knew best) and keep in place the volunteer payment structure of the staff.
Much has changedduring the past 27 years. The mission of the UFW is no longer the empowerment of farmworkers. Indeed there is a disconnect between the UFW and farmworkers due to the socio-economioc base of its staff. Workers find it difficult to communicate and identify with outsiders driving Mercedes and Lexus’. The idea of a movement no longer focuses the passions of staff. They work 8-5 and get their paycheck. A movement encompasses beliefs and passions. It is questionable without the paycheck, the 400 salaried staff of the UFW woulld be present to carry on the work of the Union. Such is the calling of a movement. The UFW is not a movement, it is a business and as such should withstand the scrutiny of a business model. and leave the mission of building a movement to as yet an unforeseen, grass roots struggle for recognition and justice. How sad that the UFW will do all in its power to silence such a movement.
July 19th, 2006 at 5:33 am
Thank you!
[url=http://qszswuuc.com/jhlg/kckj.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://bhfzmdee.com/hcxq/qhtt.html]Cool site[/url]
July 19th, 2006 at 5:33 am
Well done!
My homepage | Please visit
July 25th, 2006 at 12:12 pm
Descriptions of poker pubs their atmospheressv
September 12th, 2006 at 7:20 am
football betting ajx football betting ajx http://winning-football-betting.blogspot.comajx
May 1st, 2007 at 3:48 pm
We are the ones http://www.centralring.info
June 8th, 2007 at 5:32 am
No Credit Check No Security Personal Loans…
Neotrope/Send2Press makes no claims of accuracy or suitability for any purpose. Desire2Learn and Re…
November 28th, 2007 at 8:21 am
Anne…
\”…Remember, main goal of using a call center is to expand your business…\”…
May 9th, 2008 at 7:26 am
a2a5beff9a2a…
a2a5beff9a2a98ecea67…
June 2nd, 2008 at 12:05 pm
juego ruleta de la fortuna…
Esquiver poker gratuites net pc game casino liste jeux casino jeu de poker gratuitement play baccarat online…