Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Category: Uncategorized

  • No Child Left Alone By Military Recruiters

    The No Child Left Behind Act which went into effect last week has some surprising implications for high school students. Buried deep within the funding benefits is Section 9528 which grants the Pentagon access to directories with students names, addresses and phone numbers so that they may be more easily contacted and recruited for military service. Prior to this provision, one-third of the nation’s high schools refused recruiters’ requests for students’ names or access to campus because they believed it was inappropriate for educational institutions to promote military service.

    This portion of the Department of Education’s initiative to create better readers, testers and homework-doers is a departure from the previously federally guaranteed privacy protections students have traditionally known. Until now, schools have been explicitly instructed to protect the integrity of students’ information – even to guard students’ private information from college recruiters. Students must consent to releasing their personal data when they take college entrance exams.

    However, since September 11th , educational institutions have slid down the slippery slope in doling out student information when solicited by the FBI and now the Pentagon. Only one university – Earlham in Indiana – declined to release student data when approached after the terrorist attacks last fall.

    The No Child Left Behind act paves the way for the military to have unimpeded access to underage students who are ripe for solicitation for the military. This blatant contradiction of prior federal law is not only an invasion of students’ privacy but an assault on their educational opportunities as well. Too many students are lulled by the siren songs of military service cooing promises of funding for higher education. Too many students have fallen between the cracks due to underfunded educational programs, underresourced schools and underpaid teachers. They are penalized in their educational opportunities for the systemic failure to put our money where our priorities ought to be: in schools.

    It is critical that students, schools and school districts have accurate information regarding this No Child Left Behind Act in preparation for the forthcoming military solicitation. First, the Local Educational Agency (LEA), not individual schools, may grant dissemination of student information. When recruiters approach individual schools, the administration should refer them to the school district office where they are supposed to visit in the first place.

    In some cases, the recruiters on site have coerced employees at individual schools to sign previously prepared documents stating that in refusing to release student information, they are not in compliance with the No Child Left Behind Act and risk losing federal funding. All requests for student information should be referred to the school district’s office and not left to the discretion of individual school employees. School boards, Parent-Teacher Organizations and Student Council/ASB groups can mobilize to support the administrations who are not willing to distribute private student information.

    Second, students or their parents may opt themselves out of this recruitment campaign. So as not to be in violation of the previous federal law which restricts disclosure of student information, the LEA must notify parents of the change in federal policy through an addendum to the student handbook or individual letters sent to students’ homes. Parents and students can notify their school administration and district in writing of their desire to have their records kept secret.

    The San Francisco School District has maintained a policy of non-recruitment by the military and is leading the nation in their efforts to educate parents and students on their right to privacy. As advocates for their students, the district is sending home individual letters to parents outlining their options for protecting their child’s information.

    At the heart of this argument over students’ records and privacy is the true purpose and meaning of education. Is the goal of education to provide a fertile field of students ripe for the picking by the military which will send them to the front lines of battle, potentially never to return? Is the essence of education to dichotomize the availability of quality education between those with ample finances and those with no financial mobility?

    Or is education meant to develop students’ minds, hearts and talents through self-discovery and academic exploration? Does education aim to promote critical thinking skills, empathy for others, understanding of individual roles in community service, and a sense of global connectedness? Was education designed to be an equitable opportunity for all students?

    A newspaper from the U.K., The Scotsman, recently interviewed a young American woman on an aircraft carrier in the Middle East. Eighteen-year-old Karen de la Rosa said, “I have no idea what is happening. I just hear the planes launching above my head and pray that no one is going to get killed. I keep telling myself I’m serving my country.”

    But is her country serving her?

    The relationship between militarism and education is evident. The current Department of Education budget proposal for 2003 is $56.5 billion. The recently-approved Department of Defense budget is $396 billion, nearly seven times what is allocated for education, and more than three times the combined military budgets of Russia, China, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Cuba, Sudan and Syria. An escalated war in Iraq could add more than $200 billion to the defense budget as well.

    Students are continually guilted into shouldering the burden of responsibility when they do not succeed in school and all too often accept as inevitable their fate of being sucked into military service. The Leave No Child Behind Act is a wake up call to students to reclaim their privacy, to reinvest their energy into demanding quality education and to remind their leaders that stealing money from education to pay for military is unacceptable.
    *Leah C. Wells serves as the Peace Education Coordinator for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. December 10th, Human Rights Day, serves as the platform to challenge the No Child Left Behind Act. NAPF encourages students to get informed and become active in asserting their right to privacy and to quality education. For more information, visithttps://wagingpeace.davidmolinaojeda.com/new/getinvolved/index.htm.

  • Military Recruiting Law Puts Burden on Parents

    Originally Published in the Washington Post

    Christopher Schmitt is careful to protect his son from companies that want to give the teenager credit cards or sell him sneakers. So at this year’s parents night at his son’s Fairfax County high school, Schmitt was dismayed to see a new form in the usual stack of permission slips and reminders.

    This one invited him to sign if he wanted his son’s name, address and telephone number withheld from the Pentagon. Otherwise, the information would be included in a directory of the school’s juniors and seniors that will be given upon request to military recruiters.

    Schmitt signed the form — quickly.

    “Most people probably missed [the form], and it’ll probably be too late,” Schmitt said. “There is a commodity with your consumer history. With the military, the commodity happens to be your children’s information. . . . Once there’s a point of entry, you don’t know where the information is going to go.”

    High schools across the nation must provide the directory — what one school official called “a gold mine of a list” — under a sleeper provision in the new No Child Left Behind Act, which was enacted this year. Military officials pushed for it to counter a steady decline in the number of people who inquire about enlisting.

    Many schools already allow military recruiters on campus, sponsor ROTC programs or provide student information to the Pentagon if parents give permission. But many school officials say the mandatory provision — which puts the burden on parents to opt out rather than in — has them in an uncomfortable position.

    Part of their role as educators, they say, is to minimize intrusions so students can learn. Now, they risk losing federal funds if they don’t hand over students’ names to recruiters who, in the words of Chantilly High School Principal Tammy Turner, “want to capitalize on our captive audience.”

    Michael Carr, spokesman for the 38,000-member National Association of Secondary School Principals, said: “Student privacy is a big, big issue with schools. There are a lot of people trying to get identities of students — to get to that market.”

    There has been no uprising against the provision. Many parents and teachers see the armed forces as a possible career path and say that recruiters should have a chance to make their pitch.

    “There are great opportunities for these kids in the military,” said Donna Geren, a retired Navy commander whose son, Kyle, is a senior at West Potomac High School in Fairfax. “A lot of times, kids don’t find out about the scholarships they offer if schools are not allowed to share this information. I don’t see any downside to this.”

    Fairfax School Superintendent Daniel A. Domenech said that few parents have returned opt-out forms, but he thinks it may reflect a lack of attention rather than lack of opposition. “It makes me believe parents basically glossed over it,” he said. “I’m sure I’ll start getting calls from parents when they hear from the recruiters.”

    Although the number of military enlistees has remained fairly constant, the pool of prospective recruits continues to shrink, according to William Carr, director of military personnel policy for the Defense Department.

    More students are going to college, and in the 1990s, the tech boom created plenty of jobs, so the military was no longer the employer of last resort. Even students who express an interest say their parents don’t approve, especially as talk of war with Iraq escalates.

    In the past decade, the number of high school graduates who said they intended to join the military dropped from 32 percent to 25 percent, Carr said. At the same time, one-third of the nation’s 22,000 high schools refused recruiters’ requests for students’ names or access to campus, and the cost of recruiting one person rose from $6,000 to $12,000.

    After the military took its complaints to Congress, Rep. David Vitter (R-La.) sponsored an amendment to the No Child Left Behind Act, a sweeping federal measure passed last year that makes schools accountable for student achievement. Vitter said that military recruiters, who offer scholarships and jobs, deserved to be on par with college recruiters.

    The student directories will be used to contact students by phone and mail, William Carr said. The recruitment effort should not be compared to telemarketing in any way, he said, and it would be illegal to use the data for any purpose other than recruiting.

    “You cannot equate military readiness to a free baseball cap,” Carr said. “There’s a considerable difference.”

    The provision isn’t a perfect solution for recruiters, said Charles Moskos, a professor and military recruiting expert at Northwestern University, but it is more realistic than trying to persuade Jenna Bush — or, better yet, rap star Eminem — to join the Marines.

    “That would change people’s minds,” said Moskos, who was in the Army in 1958 when photographs of a newly drafted Elvis Presley in uniform gave the military a Cold War boost. When he asks recruiters whether they would rather have their advertising budget tripled or see Chelsea Clinton enlist, he said, “they unanimously choose the Chelsea option.”

    The directory, Moskos said, is partly aimed at improving the quality of enlistees, seeking to attract students who stay in school and have other career options. But he isn’t sure it will work. “I don’t think the prime market is high school anymore,” Moskos said. “My research says the most effective recruiter is a friend or family member who made it a career.”

    Rick Jahnkow, program director for the California-based Committee Opposed to Militarism and the Draft, said the measure misplaces the responsibility. Recruiters “had a lot of pressure to meet their quotas, so they decided to pass the buck to schools,” he said. “Now it’s a huge hammer over the heads of schools, parents and students who will have their privacy invaded.”

    Part of the burden is turning out to be administrative. Shannon Tully, director of student services at South Lakes High School in Fairfax, said a recruiter came to ask for a computer disk with the names on it before she had time to prepare it. “We told him we didn’t have it, and a week later we get an e-mail saying we were a non-cooperating school.

    “They didn’t even let us know” he was coming, Tully said. “What are we supposed to be — a fast-food restaurant?”

    William Carr, of the Defense Department, said he was unaware of that incident and could not comment on it.

    John Porter, principal of T.C. Williams High School in Alexandria, said he doesn’t see any problems with the law. In the past, the school gave the Pentagon the names of students whose parents opted in, and now it will reverse the process.

    “I see it as one of many opportunities for kids to consider post-graduation,” said Porter, who opposes directories being released to any other group. “It’s a good career choice for some people.”

    Arlington’s assistant superintendent, Alvin Crawley, said that until now, the district has refused to release student directories to anyone, including military recruiters. This year, opt-out forms were sent to all 2,500 of the county’s juniors and seniors, he said, and 130 were returned. So far, he said, recruiters have requested the student directory for only one of the district’s three high schools, Yorktown.

    Jack Parker, principal of Potomac High School in Prince William County, said his school already was in the habit of giving names to military recruiters and letting them recruit on campus during lunch periods.

    “They are not trying to solicit anything,” Parker said. “And if a student doesn’t want to be called, we strike them off the list.”

    Christine Boehm, 17, who attends Washington-Lee High School in Arlington, is less concerned about privacy than about the expense of the unsolicited mailing she received from recruiters. “It’s a waste of government money,” she said. “I’m not planning on going into the military.”

    Kyle Geren, 17, said he has already been contacted by a military recruiter at home — and went to visit him. “I think it’s a good idea the recruitment office knows how to get hold of students before they leave school,” Geren said. “I’m keeping it open as an option.”

  • A Dangerous Face

    A Dangerous Face

    It is a weak and fleshy face,
    A face with furtive eyes
    That snake along the ground, refusing
    To rise and face forward.

    He chews his words well,
    Mixing them with venom,
    Words that dart like missiles
    From the side of his malformed mouth.

    It is a dangerous, deceitful face,
    The face of a man with too many secrets.
    It is the face of one who quietly orders
    Torturers to torture and Assassins to kill.

    It is the face not of a sniper,
    But of one who orders snipers into action.
    It is the face of a Klansman behind his mask,
    The face of one who savors lynchings.

    It is the face of one who hides in dark bunkers
    And shuns the brightness of the sun.
    It is a frightened face, dull and without color,
    The face of one consumed by power.

    It is a weak and fleshy face,
    A face with furtive eyes,
    A face that falls hard and fast
    Like the blade of a guillotine.
    Responses to a Dangerous Face

    Thank you for your responses, which came from all over the world. The most popular responses to who the poem was describing were Saddam Hussein, George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden. Other responses were more general: “an enemy,” “hate,” “people who are threatening the fragile world,” “people who are fighting the modern war,” “the epitome of American fears,” “an evil human being.”

    Three people named Dick Cheney, who was the actual model for the poem. Although Cheney was the model, I believe the poem describes a certain kind of person who is lacking in compassion and committed to violence and militarism.

    I particularly liked the response of Laurel from Pierce: “This poem is describing terrorist leaders. Terrorist leaders do not care who they kill, maim and frighten. These people hide behind their followers. They delight in power over the minds of their victims and the men and women they draw into their plans. They spread hatred through lies and acts of hate. These people do not commit the acts of terror themselves; instead they command their minions to perform them, sometimes at the cost of these poor followers own lives. This poem describes all of these characteristics.” Of course, this description of “terrorist leaders” could also include leaders of countries.

    Surprisingly, no one named Henry Kissinger, who qualifies as one of the leading war criminals of the 20th century and who, despite his history of misleading Congress and the American people, was recently appointed by President Bush to head of the investigation of the September 11th terrorist attacks.
    *David Krieger is a founder and president of The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • Military Recruiters Getting a Foot in Door: Federal Education Bill Requires High Schools to Share Student Data

    Published by the Boston Globe

    WASHINGTON – A little-noticed provision in a new federal education law requires high schools to provide names, addresses, and phone numbers of students to military recruiters. Schools that refuse to comply face losing federal education funding under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

    We opposed it primarily on privacy grounds, that students or parents should be able to control access to directory information, such as names, addresses, ages. That information shouldn’t be sent out to military recruiters unless parents want it sent out.

    Christopher Anders, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union Under the rule, part of the No Child Left Behind Act signed earlier this year, Pentagon recruiters are entitled to students’ contact information unless parents opt out of sharing the data, a requirement that has alarmed civil libertarians and school administrators.

    ”We don’t wish to appear antimilitary. The military is a great first step out of high school for a lot of kids, and it is a fine career for some people,” said Bruce Hunter, a lobbyist for the American Association of School Administrators.

    Nevertheless, the association opposed the provision because it took discretion away from local school boards. ”We weren’t happy because we’re a big local control outfit.”

    The law also requires high schools to allow military recruiters the same campus access as administrators give to colleges and job recruiters. Some schools, including those in San Francisco and Portland, Ore., had refused military recruiters access to their campuses on the grounds that the Pentagon discriminated against gays and lesbians.

    Education Secretary Rod Paige sent a letter last month to school administrators explaining the new regulations. Department spokesman Jim Bradshaw said the rationale for the rule was that the military ”felt this was needed to boost recruitment.”

    Major Sandy Troeber, a Defense Department spokeswoman, said the rules were ”brought about by congressional support for military recruiting efforts.” The Selective Service already requires men in the United States to register for the draft within 30 days of their 18th birthday.

    But a fact sheet provided by the Pentagon said that the cost of recruiting had doubled in the past decade and that ”access to students can significantly reduce the costs of recruiting.”

    The Pentagon had been trying for years to insert the recruitment provisions into education legislation to counter what they saw as a lack of cooperation from some high schools, according to lobbyists and congressional aides. But this year the education bill was so loaded with other contentious issues, such as school vouchers, funding matters, and testing standards, that lawmakers who might have fought the new recruitment rules had their energies focused on other provisions.

    ”It wasn’t on anybody’s radar. It was buried so deep in the legislation,” said Kathleen Lyons, spokeswoman for the National Education Association. The group has only recently begun studying the issue and hasn’t yet taken a position on it, she said.

    Senator Edward M. Kennedy, a Democrat of Massachusetts and a major negotiator on the Leave No Child Behind Act, had fought successfully for several years to keep the military recruitment rules out of education bills, but couldn’t win the battle this year, especially since bigger education issues were dominating the debate, Hunter said. Senator Tim Hutchinson, Republican of Arkansas, engineered the inclusion of the new language, said a Kennedy staffer.

    ”All this provision does is provide military recruiters with the same access to directory information that colleges currently enjoy,” Kennedy said in a statement.

    Civil libertarians are concerned about the rule nonetheless.

    ”We opposed it primarily on privacy grounds, that students or parents should be able to control access to directory information, such as names, addresses, ages,” said Christopher Anders, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. ”That information shouldn’t be sent out to military recruiters unless parents want it sent out.”

    Under federal privacy laws, schools generally must have written permission from parents or students to release any information about a student’s education record, according to the Education Department. Exceptions include handing records over to a transfer school, to law enforcement in some cases, and to officials who need the information in cases of health or safety emergencies.

    Schools may release what is called ”directory information,” such as names, addresses, phone numbers, and date and place of birth, but they must also give parents the option of refusing disclosure of their child’s information. Schools can decide on their own whether to provide the directory information to outside individuals or organizations.

    The difference under the new rule is that schools will not have the discretion to refuse to provide such information to the military; they must provide the information to recruiters and allow them on campus at the Pentagon’s request.

    Groups such as the American Friends Service Committee and the Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors, an antimilitary draft organization, have been fielding complaints about the new rules, but are not sure whether they can successfully challenge them, especially in the environment created by the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. Analysts are looking at whether the rules violate existing privacy law, said Oscar Castro, an AFSC official.

    Jill Wynns, president of the San Francisco Board of Education, said the board’s attorneys are looking at the law to see whether the Bay Area school system can keep any part of its current written policy, which prohibits military recruiters from coming on campus and bars the release of any student information to military recruiters ”or anyone who asks for it.”

    ”We are very upfront about being biased in favor of higher education. We’re telling our kids, `go to college, go to college,”’ said Wynns, adding that schools do not allow businesses to recruit on campuses, either. The military has not yet asked for students’ contact information, but recruiters have demanded and recently been given access to San Francisco high schools for the first time in 12 years, she said.

  • Letter From Iraqi Foreign Minister to the U.N.

    The following letter was delivered to United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan from the Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Saberi Ahmed.

    In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful Go thou to Pharaoh, for he has indeed transgressed all bounds. But speak to him mildly; perchance he may take warning or fear (Alla).”

    (Allah’s is the Word of Truth)

    His excellency
    Mr. Kofi Annan,
    The Secretary-General of the United Nations,
    New York, N.Y.

    Your Excellency
    Assalamu Alaykum,

    You may recall the huge clamour fabricated by the President of the United States administration, in the biggest and most wicked slander against Iraq, supported in malicious intent, and spearheaded in word and malevolence, by his lackey Tony Blair, when they disseminated the claim that Iraq had perhaps produced, or was on its way to produce, nuclear weapons, during the time when the United Nations inspectors had been absent from Iraq since 1998. Then they returned to stress that Iraq had in fact produced chemical and biological weapons. They both know, as well as we do, and so can other countries, that such fabrications are baseless. But, does the knowledge of the truth constitute elements for interaction in the politics of our day, which has witnessed the unleashing of the American administration’s evil to its fullest extent, dashing away all hope in any good? Indeed, is there any good to be hoped for, or expected, from the American administrations, now that they have been transformed by their own greed, by Zionism as well as by other known factors, into the tyrant of the age.

    Let’s go back to say that Iraq, having seen this fabrication work perhaps with some countries and amongst public opinion, while others maintained silence, confronted them with its agreement to the return of the UN inspectors, having agreed on this first with you, as UN chief, in New York on 16 September, 2002, and later in a press statement issued jointly in Vienna following a meeting on 30th September-1st October between an Iraqi technical delegation headed by Dr. Amer Al-Sa’di, Chief Inspector Hans Blix and Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). But after Iraq’s acceptance of the return of the UN inspectors had become an established fact including the agreement of 19 October, 2002, on the date of their return, and only a few hours this agreement was reached, Collin Powell, the US Secretary of Sate, declared that he would refuse to accept the inspectors’ return to Iraq. In the meantime, the gang of evil returned to talking about adopting a new resolution, or new resolutions, in order to create something for the world to talk about, other than following the work of the inspectors and then seeing the fact already stated by Iraq, which was that Iraq neither had produced or was in possession of any weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical or biological, throughout the time of the inspectors’ absence from Iraq. However, representatives at the United Nations and its agencies, especially those from permanent member-states, instead of fellowship up on this and, hence, expose those responsible for the dissemination of lies and fabrications, were busy discussing the type and wording of the new resolution. They were indulged in what word or letter to add here or omit there, until they adopted a text under the pretext that is would be better to take the kicks of a raging bull in a small circle than to face its horns in an open space. The text was adopted under the American Administration’s pressure and threat that is would leave UN, if it did not agree to what America wanted, which is, to say the least, extremely evil and shameful to every honest member of the United Nations who recalls the provisions of its Charter, and sees that some people feel ashamed on behalf of those who are shameless.

    Mr. Secretary-General,

    We have said to the member of the Security Council whom we have contacted, or who have contacted us, when they told us about the pretexts of the Americans and their threat to perpetrate aggression against our country, whether unilaterally or with participated from others, if the Council were not to allow them to have their way, that we preferred, if it ever became necessary to see America carry out its aggressions against us unilaterally, when we would have to confront it relying on Allah, instead of seeing the American government obtaining an international cover with which to camouflage its falsehood, partially or completely, bringing it closer to the truth, so that it may stab the truth with the dagger of evil and confronted the United States before when it looked as it does now, and this was one of the factors of its isolation in the human environment on the globe at large.

    The aggressionism of the United States of America and its single-handed infliction of injustice and destruction on those subjected to its inequity, in the forefront of whom are the Muslims and Arab believers, is the basic reason why America has withdrawn its ambassadors and other staff, close its embassies, and restrict its interests in many parts of the world, while reaping the hatred of the peoples of the world due to its policies and aggressive objectives. This is a situation which no other country in the world has experienced before, including the fathers of old colonialism. The Security Council, however, or indeed those who can basically play an influential role in it, have, instead of leaving the American administration and its lackey reap the result of their evil, saved wrong-doing rather than halted it. We shall see when remorse will not do any good for those who bite on their fingers.

    Mr. Secretary-General,

    The strength of influence of any internation organization rests on the belief of the human environment in which the organization exists and which places its trust in it, once the organization declares that is has been founded to achieve goals important to mankind. We fear the United Nations Organization may lose the trust and attachment of peoples, that is if it has not fallen to that place already. This is due to the exploitation of the organization be powerful interests, whenever their greedy ambitions converge at the expense of the interests of other peoples. It may also be due to the expediency and compromise amongst those interests in falsehood at the expense of truth. So the United Nations Organization and its agencies will collapse in the same way as did its predecessor, the league of Nations. Then the responsibility for this will not rest with the American administrations alone, but will also be due to the weakness of the timid who allow themselves to work for American interests, under the threat, lure or promises of the American administration.

    He who remains silent in the defence of truth is a dumb devil. Nothing seems more reprehensible than the silence maintained by those who represented their nations in the security Council, as they discussed the American draft resolution, in the face of a question raised by the representative of Mexico regarding the possibility of lifting the blockade imposed on Iraq. The Mexican representative said, during consultations at the Security Council over SCR 1441 on 8 November 2002, that he did not find convincing the explanations presented by the American Permanent Representative, regarding the absence of any reference to the lifting of sanctions and the establishment in the Middle East region of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction, and that he would convey this to his government in order to receive instructions. The British Representative responded by saying that he has listened to the statements made by the delegations of Syria and Mexico regarding the inclusion in the draft text of a paragraph on the lifting of sanctions. He went on to say that Iraq had been provided with the opportunity to dispose of its weapons of mass destruction, but Iraq had ignored that opportunity and decided to keep possession of those WMDs. Hence, he added, it would be inappropriate to include a reference to the lifting of sanctions as long as Iraq remained in possession of those weapons, even though an indirect reference to that effect was being accommodated.

    We ask here, why is it that none of the representatives of SC member-states asked their British counterpart when, where and how such an alleged decision was taken by Iraq to keep possession of the weapons of mass destruction. They treated the claim made by the British representative as if it were of no significance to them: Or, rather, as it were of no concern to them to say the truth. Does not this instance, along with other things and the decline of this type of international organizations point to the possibility of the collapse of this international organization which was founded in order to preserve world peace and security, but has now been transformed into a kitchen-house for big-power bargaining, providing cover for war, destruction, blockades and starvation to be inflicted upon peoples.

    The future will be determined in the light of the possibility for reform, or the inability to achieve reform. The future of the United Nations is no exception to this. Hence, all those who are truly concerned about the well-being of this organization, in deeds not only in words, and about its work on the basis of the UN Charter, so that stability, justice and fairness will prevail in the world, providing a road-map for peace, freedom and cooperation to flourish amongst peoples, are called upon to be careful and to adhere to the UN Charter and international law, and not to the whims and incontrolable instincts of those who threaten the world with their evil schemes weaponry and those who seek to achieve their interests narrow-mindedly by resorting to the bargaining at the expense of truth, justice and fairness.

    Mr. Secretary-General,

    We know that those who pressed the Security Council to adopt resolution No. 1441 have other objectives than making sure that Iraq had not developed mass destruction weapons in the absence of the inspectors since 1998. You are aware of how and who stood behind their absence. We also know that there are no true, just, or fair reasons behind the adoption of this resolution in the name of the security council, after the well-known understanding agreement between the representatives of Iraq and the UN Secretary-General and the press statement issued jointly by Blix, ElBaradei, and the Iraqi representatives. We hereby inform you that we will deal with resolution 1441, despite its bad contents, if it is to be implemented according to the premeditated evil of the parties of ill- intent, the important thing in this is trying to spare our people from any harm. But we will not forget, nor should others do, that safeguarding our people’s dignity, security, independence, and protecting our country, its sovereignty and sublime values, is as a sacred duty in our leadership’s and government’s agenda. Therefore, and as we said in the foresaid agreement and press statement, we are prepared to receive the inspectors, so that they can carry out their duties, and make sure that Iraq had not developed weapons of mass destruction, during their absence since 1998.

    We hereby ask you to inform the Security Council that we are prepared to receive the inspectors within the assigned timetable. The parties concerned should bear in mind that we are in our holy month of Ramadan which means that the people are fasting, and this holy month will be followed by the Muslum’s Eid. Nevertheless, we will cooperate with the concerned UN bodies and officials on the background of all this, and of the tripartite, French-Russia-China, statement. Dealing with the inspectors, the government of Iraq will, also, take into consideration, their way of conduct, the intentions of those who are ill-intentioned amongst them and their improper approach in showing respect to the people’s national dignity, their independence and security, and their country’s security, independence and sovereignty. We are eager to see them perform their duties in accordance with the international law as soon as possible. If they do so, professionally and lawfully, without any premeditated intentions, the lairs’ lies will be exposed to public opinion, and the declared objective of the Security Council will be achieved. It will then become the lawful duty of the Security Council to lift the blockade and all the other unjust sanctions on Iraq. If it does not, all the peoples of good will in the world, in addition to Iraq, will tell it to do so. The SC will be compelled before the public opinion and the law to activate paragraph 14 of its resolution No. 687, by applying it to the Zionist entity (Israel), and then, to all the Middle East region, to make it a region void of mass destruction weapons. The number of just people will, then, increase in the world, and Iraq’s possibility to drive away the cawing of the crows of evil that daily raid its land, and kill Iraqis and destroy their property by their bombs. This will help the stability of the region and the world, if it is accompanied by a resolution that will not be based on double standards, to put an end to the Zionist occupation of Palestine, and other occupied Arab territories, and if the warmongers stop their aggressions on the Muslums and the world.

    Therefore, through you, we reiterate the same words to the Security Council: Send your inspectors to Iraq to make sure of this, and everyone will be sure, if their way of conduct is supervised so that it becomes legal and professional, that Iraq has not developed weapons of mass destruction, whether nuclear, chemical, or biological, as claimed by evil people. The lies and manipulations of the American administration and British government will be exposed, while the world will see how truthful and adequate are the Iraqis in what they say and do. But if the whims of the American administration, the Zionist desires, their followers, intelligence services, threats, and foul temptation, were given the chance to play and tamper with the inspection teams or some of their members, the colors would be then confused and the resulting commotion will distort the facts and push the situation into dangerous directions which is something fair-minded people do not wish for, as well as the people who, including my government, want to bring forward the facts as they are. The fieldwork and the implementation will be the decisive factors that will reveal whether the intentions were really for the Security Council to make sure that Iraq is void of those alleged weapons, or whether the whole thing was nothing but an evil cover by those who were behind the resolution who have no scruples to utter debased slander and to tell lies to the public opinion including to their own peoples.

    So, let the inspectors come to Baghdad to carry out their duties in accordance with the law, and then we will hear and see along with those who want to hear, see and move according to each one’s responsibility and rights. The final word and reference will still be resolution No.687 with its obligations on both the Secretary general and Iraq, along will the code of conduct agreed upon in the agreement signed by thee Secretary-General in New York on 16th September, 2002, and the press statement of Hans Blix and ElBaradei in Vienna in 30/9- 1/10/2002.

    Mr. Secretary-General,

    Please assume your responsibilities, by saying and advising the unfair people that their unfairness to Muslims, faithful Arabs, and to all, will be of dire consequences, and that God, the Almighty is capable of doing everything. Tell them that the proud Iraqi people are faithful and Mujahid and who had fought the old colonialism, imperialism and aggression, including the tyrant’s aggression, for years and years. The price this courageous people paid to safeguard their independence, dignity, sublime principles was rivers of blood, with a lot of deprivation and loss of their riches, along with their eternal achievements and record of which they are proud. Therefore, we hope, that you will, Mr. Secretary General, advise the ignorants not to push things to the precipice, in the implementation, because the people of Iraq will not choose to live at the price of their dignity, country, freedom or sanctities, and they would rather make their lives the price if that was the only way before them to safeguard what they must safeguard.

    I wish to inform your Excellency before I conclude this letter, that I intend to forward another letter to you on a later date, in which I shall state our observations the measures and procedures, contained in SCR 1441 that are contrary to international law, UN Charter, the facts already established and the measures contained in previous relevant resolutions of the Security Council.

    “Do ye secure He Who is in Heaven will not cause you to be swallowed up by the earth when it shakes”

    (Allah’s is the Word of Truth)

    Allah is the Greatest.

    Naji Saberi Ahmed
    Minister of Foreign Affairs
    Republic of Iraq

  • Sin Las Mujeres, No Hay Movimiento. “Without the Women, There is no Movement.”

    For many years, women had played supporting roles within movements for nonviolence. They cared for the children and supported their men as they worked on the front lines and garnered the headlines, making public waves. They photocopied and typed behind closed doors, allowing their contributions to remain hidden and, sometimes, allowing men to take credit for their work.

    The farm worker movement is a notable exception to this paradigm.

    The late activist Cesar Chavez recognized the power of women in action when a group of them set up a prayer service and vigil at a ranch a vigil that lasted two months. The workers had been sanctioned by a judge against picketing at a farm. The prayer service began with eight women at noon; it grew to 50 by nightfall.

    Every day, the women maintained a nonviolent presence at the gates to the farm, singing spirituals, praying and signing authorization cards.

    A strong contingent of women activists thrives at Ventura’s PictSweet mushroom farm. They play key roles in policy and decision-making. They are organized, and they are proud. And their stories shape the future of the movement as their co-workers and children see the essential importance of their input in a shared victory.

    Within the first week of leaving her native town in Jalisco, Mexico in 1978, Lilia Orozco began her career at PictSweet. She sacrificed from the start, leaving her two children, ages 3 and 5, in the care of her mother while she joined her husband in Ventura.

    The history behind her strength runs deep.

    “In my town in Jalisco,” she said, ”the women wanted on president and the men wanted another. And the strength of the women won. We got our president elected.”

    When she and her husband separated, her single motherhood dictated her involvement in the movement. Whereas other women might have taken a quieter role in the struggle, Lilia stood at the forefront. When her sons joined her in the United States in 1980, she started taking them to the picket lines.

    “I made the struggle fit into my life,” she said. “You have to play so many roles mother, father, cook, doctor an dkeep up with their education, the housework, everything.”

    For Lilia, there was no question as to whether motherhood or work was more important. They were, and are, equal in her eyes.

    “We have to defend ourselves and our jobs,” she said. “If we give up, other scabs would have taken our jobs.”

    As the sole provider for her children, Lilia realized that if they were to survive in the United States, she had to continue to fight.

    When Lilia began working, the PictSweet farm was owned by West Foods. In 1981, just a few years after beginning her commitment to mushroom agriculture, the workers went on strike to renew their contract with West. The strike served to maintain a comprehensive benefits package that provided for the families’ medical needs.

    Lilia tells a story of better times at PictSweet, when dental and vision insurance were part of the benefits package, and when the medical plan included $5 prescription costs.

    For the past 23 years, Lilia has been working in the “bubble” department, cleaning the mushroom beds after they have been picked. It took her only two months on the job to find her place in the United Farm Workers union, and she has been a vocal supporter of labor representation ever since. This struggle helped her to find her voice and to stand up not only for her rights but also for the rights of others.

    “When a woman is by herself,” she said, “everyone wants to take advantage of her. You have to stand up for yourself. If I know that I’m right, I have to fight back.” Her conclusion: No one can do it for you.

    Lilia’s message to the union’s Farm Worker Committee “gets desperate” when she feels she has important information for them. Her sentiments are similar to those of a female Georgetown law student, who said, “Women want answers more quickly because we’re more often the victims, anda victims don’t want to wait for solutions.”

    She capitalizes on the value of women in the movement by talking to everyone at the mushroom plant. “More people will talk to women than men,” she says. “And when the men at work are talking badly about women, I remind them that their wives and mothers are women. When they talk badly about the union, I press the issue and ask what they really mean…what is behind their fear.”

    “At this time,” she said, “the struggle is more balanced. Women are playing more equal roles and are stronger, making more of a difference this time around.” She referred to the most recent struggle to gain a contract with PictSweet the movement was invigorated in 2000 with a massive boycott strategy.

    Alicia Torres’ experience is similar to Lilia’s: She came here from Mexico to be with her husband, bringing one child with her and leaving three behind with her family in Michoacan. For the past 15 years, she has been the breadwinner in her family because a brain disease has left her husband incapacitated and unable to work.

    In 1989, Alicia immigrated to the United States as a migrant worker, first picking strawberries and grapes in Lodi, then packing vegetables for Boscotich Farms. She lost her job there when she asked for some time off to raise her kids.

    “I signed papers with the forewoman for an arrangement that she would hire me back during the onion season,” Alicia sighed. “She said she’d call me for a job.” As onion season began in 2000, Alicia watched as many other women were hired back. She eventually was told she would not get her job as a packer back. After this disappointing incident, she found work at PictSweet.

    Alicia works in the brown mushrooms department, picking portabellas. Union organizing and contract efforts had begun by the time she arrived, and she decided to support the union because of her previous experience.

    As the union representative for the brown mushroom department, she says she has no fear: “How can we improve our conditions if not together?” she said. “The Union gives women many opportunities to succeed. God made women strong. Even when we’re sick, we work and struggle. Women work through the hard times!”

    She advises her daughters to be strong women as well, to “get a good education, to prepare themselves and stand up for themselves.”

    She also stresses cooperation: “Women could not run this campaign alone,” she explained. “We give the men courage. We are decisive when they say ‘it will happen later,’ we say ‘it will happen now!”

    The daughters of Jesus Torres, notable in the United Farm Workers campaign to win a contract with PictSweet, know the ropes of organizing already. Just 8 and 9 years old, they attend regular meetings with their father at the United Farm Workers office, often until late at night.

    “We come here,” they said, “because we want to hear more about the union. We have marched in Sacramento and Los Angeles because we want a contract for the workers,” the girls exclaim. “…and when we miss school because of the struggle, we bring souvenirs to our teachers, like pins and buttons.”

    These girls see for themselves how they want to contribute in society. Judit wants to be a teacher because “it’s fun telling kids how to learn.” At a young age, she is realizing that education also takes place outside the classroom.

    Lourdes wants to be an artist: “I want to draw the sea, sun, grass, sky…people.”

    The girls nod their heads enthusedly when asked if they’re proud of their dad.

    “It helps him for us to be here,” they said with a giggle. “He has his family supporting him.”

    Perhaps one day, the Torres girls will have children of their own supporting their place at the forefront of the struggle for workers’ rights.
    *Leah C. Wells serves as the Peace Education Coordinator for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • Policies of Mass Destruction

    There is a force – a secret force hidden wisely from our view – that makes you and me, this newspaper, our planet, our sun and the Milky Way galaxy stretching trillions of miles around us. This force is omnipresent, coursing through every particle of your body. Indeed, this force IS you. It is the most powerful force we know, a force that makes the Universe we see, by the balance – the equilibrium – in its eternal action.

    57 years ago, this equilibrium was shattered when human beings split atoms within a primitive nuclear weapon. Through intervening decades, the phrase “weapon of mass destruction” has become all too well known in our lexicon.

    I became familiar with the controversy surrounding weapons of mass destruction in the late 1970s, when my father and mother organized Utahns United Against the Nuclear Arms race, an activist movement that confronted the United States military and ultimately helped to defeat the monstrous MX missile “shell game” basing plan. Before and since that era, other historic visionaries have battled the nuclear weapon insanity and its obscene policy fig leaf, mutually assured destruction.

    But life took me in other directions. into business, investment, and the technology breakthroughs of Silicon Valley. For more than a decade I pursued the American entrepreneurial dream as a CEO, driven by innovation and measured by profit. I was successful and content in this pursuit. That is, until I came to appreciate that there are other kinds of weapons of mass destruction than those launched from bunkers, subs and planes.

    Since 1998, I have come to realize that weapons of mass destruction come in many forms.

    A global economic program that rapes the natural world is a weapon of mass destruction far more lethal than any device in any arsenal of this world.

    An energy policy that invests in destructive rather than benign production is a weapon of mass destruction.

    Copyright and patent laws that artificially inflate the cost of sharing stories, songs, and science are weapons of mass destruction.

    Education systems that fail our children are weapons of mass destruction.

    Media that places ratings over truth is a weapon of mass destruction.

    A national security policy that shreds the sacred civil liberties within our democracy, and which sheds the international obligations between democracies, is a weapon of mass destruction.

    Indeed, a nation – our nation – whose high-school history teacher has a deeper grasp of world affairs than the man it entrusts with the future history of the world… is a weapon of mass destruction.

    To be sure, Saddam Hussein’s attempts to develop devices of mass destruction must be halted by the community of nations. But at the same time, we must ask ourselves: how can such devices best be eliminated from every nation’s arsenal? Shall it be by the development, testing and deployment of more such devices by a 21st century empire? Or rather by the global abolition of them, and a global program of verification, catalyzed by the greatest democracy the world has ever known?

    To me, one thing seems certain: we will not succeed in eliminating devices of mass destruction while we fail in eliminating policies of mass destruction. I find myself in rare agreement with George Bush in saying that we cannot allow the world’s worst leaders to use the world’s most dangerous weapons. I am hard pressed to identify a single major policy initiative of the Bush administration that is not a weapon of mass destruction.

    The elections of 2002 and 2004 are our opportunities for regime change. Let us use them wisely.

  • Struggle at Pictsweet Continues; Public Support of Boycott Sought

    Published in the Ventura County Star

    The goal is not to bring your enemies to their knees but to their senses. — Mahatma Gandhi

    Jim Lawson, the man who spent two years at Gandhi’s ashram studying nonviolent movements and who was responsible for desegregating the Nashville lunch counters through sit-ins and boycotts, says that violence has a simple dynamic: “I make you suffer until you say ‘uncle.’ ”

    Such are the tactics of Pictsweet toward its pro-union workers.

    The management at Pictsweet — led by General Manager Ruben Franco, Human Resources Manager Gilbert Olmos and the minion managers who oversee the various departments — are trying to bring the workers who want United Farm Workers representation and a contract with Pictsweet to their knees and strong-arm them into submission, to break their spirit and determination.

    On June 4, the Agricultural Labor Relations Board corroborated the anti-union practices at Pictsweet in a ruling that crescendos a similar ruling from Jan. 10. Both in January and this month, the ALRB upheld section 1152 of the Agricultural Labor Relations Act, which states that workers have the right to self-organization and forming, joining and assisting labor organizations. The ALRB found that Pictsweet is in violation of section 1153 (a) and (c) by way of interfering with the aforementioned rights as well as discriminating against workers who engage in pro-union activities.

    Enter Fidel Andrade. He was fired on May 31 as a result of engaging in protected activities a few days earlier — standing up for a co-worker, union movement leader Jesus Torres.

    In defending Andrade’s actions, the ALRB cited the provocation doctrine, which “prohibits an employer from provoking an employee to the point where he commits an indiscretion or insubordinate act and then relying on that indiscretion to discipline him.”

    In its ruling, the ALRB also pointed out that “it is apparent that management seized the May 27 incident as an opportunity to rid itself of an employee that union leader Torres characterized as his ‘right-hand.’ ”

    Last week, the ALRB ruled that not only was the termination of Andrade’s employment excessive punishment, but that Pictsweet routinely practices singling out union supporters. Pictsweet management already had its eye on Andrade, as he gave an interview to The Star after the compost fire last year, commenting that the fire aggravated his asthma and that he wished the company would give workers time off with pay while the fire was extinguished.

    Discrimination of this magnitude is commonplace at Pictsweet, which is owned by United Foods, Inc., a corporation based in Bells, Tenn., with policies rooted in plantation governance. The treatment of Pictsweet workers in Ventura shows an atavistic Civil War-era mentality where working conditions are treacherous and the work force disposable.

    Workers at Pictsweet are struggling for a contract that will provide for a means of arbitration in the case of disputes like the one on May 27. They want the law to work for them in protecting their rights and their jobs. They want a better salary, more than the 48 cents per basket they currently make; they want better health benefits so that they do not have to pay $150 per family member per year before insurance covers their medical costs. They want a pension plan so that, upon retirement, they have something to show for their commitment to Pictsweet and their hard work. Most of all, however, they want respect and a voice at work.

    The management at Pictsweet claims that the workers themselves are trying to bring the company to its knees rather than its senses.

    They claim that the boycott, which was called in September 2000, intends to hurt the company. So far, it has hurt Pictsweet: The company has lost millions in contracts with businesses like Ralph’s, Vons and Costco, and it continues to throw away tens of thousands of pounds of mushrooms every week rather than negotiate fairly for a contract with its workers.

    Gandhi taught that boycotts are a means of nonviolent persuasion that oppressed people can use to bring people to their senses. While successful, the Pictsweet boycott still needs support from the public, especially against mushrooms at Pizza Hut, to win a contract.
    *Leah C. Wells serves as peace education coordinator for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. The United Farm Workers may be reached at 486-9674.

  • Youth at the Millennium – Conference Update

    The following is a draft statement prepared by participants in the recent conference Youth at the Millennium: An Intergenerational Dialogue on Youth, Leadership, and Global Society. We welcome your thoughts and opinions regarding this statement. Our goal is to expand the statement, incorporating your feedback and input, as a means to provide interested individuals with clarity on international social justice issues as well as inspiration for action. Please send your comments and questions to youth@napf.org . Click here for testimonials from the conference.
    To Live Simply So that Others May Simply Live:
    Draft Statement from the Youth at the Millennium Conference, April 2002

    From April 1-4, 2002, in Santa Barbara, California, a group of young men and women met with a group of their elders to discuss the world as it is and the world as it could be. The Institute for World Culture, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Santa Barbara City College, and the University of California at Santa Barbara provided support for this gathering which was a project of Group 21, an international organization dedicated to fostering intergenerational dialogue on issues of global importance. The following statement represents the sense of the meeting and the ability of the group to articulate its four-day dialogue on the final day of meeting and discussion.

    Globalization has had a dramatic impact on human society. The forces of globalization have intensified conflict locally as well as globally. People, particularly the young, are left feeling alienated, isolated, and discouraged from free thought. Many among the young have internalized the principles of consumer culture, which are promoted by the media through advertising. However, though the young are targeted as consumers, they are denied a political voice. Decisions are mostly made by older generations. This problems exists on a global level, where the people of the world have little say in the decisions made by international financial institutions on their behalf.

    Globalization does allow young people to connect with and learn about each other throughout the world. On the other hand, it also forces youth to face the disparities and inequalities that exist in the world, which are perpetuated by the rich and powerful at the expense of the poor and marginalized. While oppression has resulted from globalization, resistance to it has also resulted. Youth in particular, passionate and curious can and do serve as catalysts in opposition to the oppression caused by globalization.

    The powerful influence of globalization has shaken the ethical and spiritual foundations of humankind. Recognition of interdependence is necessary for the co-existence of people and planet. The fragile balance within the human body is analogous to the fragile balance of earth’s ecology. Careful attention to it is crucial to all life on Earth. Recent years have seen a degradation of the environment that is unprecedented. Fueled by globalization, the corporatization of nature is accelerating the mismanagement of the natural world. The resulting problems unjustly affect future generations, denying them the intrinsic value of the wilderness, and irreparably damaging their ability to sustain livelihoods.

    We must revere all life, of which humanity is a part. We must embrace diversity, both in the environment and in our brothers and sisters across the face of the earth. Such a global perspective goes beyond the material effects of global processes, and demands an awareness of the intrinsic values of each individual. It is in the best interest of humankind to celebrate the diversity and remain mindful of our actions towards each other and towards the natural world.

    There are over six billion people living on Earth, yet a minority benefits from the effects of globalization. Free trade has led to free reign by the few fully industrialized nations over the many which are not. Some nations enjoy robust economies at the expense of the majority of other nations without whose labor, land and resources the rich nations would not prosper. The undeniable gap between the haves and the have nots is exacerbated by such bodies as the World bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization.

    In spite of accelerating inequalities, youth remains optimistic because there is also an accelerating awareness of these inequities. Furthermore, there is a resistance to them. The world must be reclaimed at the local level through collective action and community development. Economic justice can only be attained if it is simultaneously pursued at the local and global levels. Discovering new personal and social models, which involve youth, is essential to the correcting economic imbalance.

    The consumption habits of the modern world are destroying the very thing that gives us life, the Earth. The processes that maintain the planet’s equilibrium are in jeopardy. Two main problems have resulted: the degradation of the environment and its ability to sustain future generations. These problems harm the integrity of all life. Emphasis on the right of the individual to act independently as a consumer has hidden the interdependence of all life, which is vital to the sustenance of life on Earth. The interest of one is really the interest of all. Recognition of interdependence leads to reverence for the unity of life. The Earth itself must be held in reverence for it sustains life. The moral imperative of this time is to live simply so that others may simply live.
    Draft Statement from the Youth at the Millennium Conference
    April 4, 2002
    Youth at the Millennium: Testimonials

    Student discuss The Political Consequences of Globalization

    I loved the speakers, both in that every one of them was so open and intelligent, but also that each had a different perspective and different focus, so that when everyone came together their views were very diverse.
    – Anonymous

    Youth at the Millennium provided so much – it brought us together and allowed for the networking vital to an effective movement for a positive globalization – to begin at a local level here among the students and groups located in Santa Barbara on one level, and with those outside of Santa Barbara through the wonderful guest speakers. Sharing the experience of experts helps us, the students, to understand what we can do, what to look out for, etc., making us more ready to face it.
    – Anonymous

    The other thing that was key to making this such a worthwhile event is its emphasis on ethics and morality. It is these discussions that are absent in the current discussions around globalization. The anti-globalization has become predictable, which is a problem. By framing questions about ethics, morality, and self-reflection, we are taking the discussion to another level.
    – Anonymous
    I have never before participated in an event with my peers that gave me such a strong sense of solidarity, and it gave me hope for my generation and for the future of humanity in general. The devotion Phil and Bob brought to this cause is truly inspiring, and they have engaged in an endeavor of truth and justice that deserves the utmost respectability. I personally want to thank everyone involved for providing me with such an inspiring and wonderful experience.
    – Anonymous

    This world often leaves me depressed and questioning of the ability to produce positive change; I can easily get consumed by the grim reality of the current state of things. However, this conference has renewed my hope and reinvigorated my spirit… The interaction and conversations that have taken place over the past few days are priceless and will lead to great things in the future.
    – Anonymous

  • Boycott Pictsweet Mushrooms

    Originally Published in Common Dreams

    As many people in our nation today are obsessing over Enron stock, as Northrop Grumman bids $10.8 billion to purchase TRW to make the largest defense contracting agency whose annual revenues would top $26 billion, and as the latest Arnold Schwartzenegger film “Collateral Damage” continues to gross more than $30 million dollars, the workers at the Pictsweet mushroom farm in Ventura, CA are haggling with their recalcitrant management over pennies.

    In the 1990’s, mushroom workers at Pictsweet in Ventura received a small raise every two years; in 2000 after an escalation in tension between management and labor due to stalling contract negotiations and workplace discrimination, no raise was issued. The workers, who make an average annual salary of $25,000, have relied on this raise to keep up with the rising cost of living in the United States, even though in prior years the raise was also accompanied by an increased workload meaning that the raise was really not a raise, merely a compensation for the extra work.

    But would a contract truly remedy the financial crunch that workers presently feel? The uncontracted workers at Pictsweet obviously get short shrift as compared to the contracted workers at the Monterey Mushroom farm in Watsonville, CA whose working conditions and wages are significantly more competitive and egalitarian under contract with their employer.

    Monterey Mushroom workers receive $9.18 per hour for picking Brown mushrooms, and $11.90 per hour for maintenance work. They have no annual deductible for their medical plan and pay no premiums, and they receive 80% coverage for both vision and dental expenses. The lighting in the one-story rooms with mushroom beds have overhead lighting, the air conditioning hoses are plastic and provide proper circulation, and there are two emergency exits per room.

    In contrast, workers at Pictsweet Mushroom farm are paid $7.25 per hour for picking Brown mushrooms, and $7.65 per hour for maintenance work. Their medical deductible is $150 per family member per year, and they pay a monthly premium of $58.04, and they have no vision or dental coverage. The only light in rooms with mushroom beds comes from the inadequate bulbs on their helmets, the metal air conditioning tubes condense water which leaks and contributes to slippery work conditions, and there is only one emergency exit on the first floor of two-story rooms. In a September visit to the Pictsweet plant at the invitation of the management, I verified firsthand these working conditions in an extensive tour of the facility.

    The demands of the workers at Pictsweet are not extravagant: they want a contract, they want a means of fair arbitration for legitimate complaints, they want better health benefits and they want respect on the job.

    On Thursday, February 14, an Agricultural Labor Relations Board hearing commenced in Oxnard, CA to investigate charges filed by lawyers for the United Farm Workers on behalf of the Pictsweet workers. The United Farm Workers maintain that the management at Pictsweet has engaged in unfair labor practices as defined by the Agricultural Labor Relations Act of 1975, such as laying off and reducing work hours for workers without notifying United Farm Workers, their bargaining representative. In the latest hearings, UFW lawyers questioned plant manager from the Ventura Pictsweet farm, Ruben Franco, who admitted under oath that area supervisors of the farm keep separate lists whose existence had been previously denied which list the classification and superiority of workers. These classification and seniority lists are essential to the UFW’s case in proving that new workers were hired instead of reinstating workers who had been laid off.

    Pictsweet lawyer Barbara Krieg, whose law firm Bryan Cave LLP earned $11 million in representing the Government of Kuwait in 1993 and 1994 in prosecuting the $59 billion claims for Gulf War reparations against Iraq, later questioned mushroom picker Jesus Torres. Referring to the aforementioned biennial raises, Krieg asked Torres if he believes that “if a worker thinks he deserves a raise, should the worker necessarily receive that raise?” An objection to this question by UFW lawyers was sustained by Judge Nancy C. Smith. In essence, however, Krieg’s question translates as “be quiet, be grateful for the pittance you have, and hope that we don’t take more from you in the end.” This question Krieg posed reflects the classist mentality that worker exploitation is an acceptable and necessary workplace evil in the capitalist dog-eat-dog world.

    Because the corporation which owns Pictsweet, United Foods, Inc., went private in 1999, their annual gross revenue for 2001 is unavailable. However, in fiscal year 2000 they earned $163 million and experienced a 21.2% sales growth, according to The Industry Standard. Their annual revenue per employee was $77,619.05 – more than three times what an average Pictsweet employee makes in a year!

    In September 2000, the United Farm Workers initiated a boycott of Pictsweet mushrooms which has steadily amassed a following from such retail chains as Vons, Safeway and Ralph’s. The current target of the boycott is Pizza Hut which continues to purchase Pictsweet mushrooms.

    The workers will win a contract with Pictsweet, but it will take community support for this boycott and campaign for respect. You can help support them by writing to your local Pizza Hut manager, by refusing to support Pictsweet’s exploitative business practices by not ordering Pizza Hut pizzas, and by coming out to support the workers in their struggle at the upcoming march for economic justice in honor of the labor hero Cesar Chavez in Oxnard on April 28.
    *Leah C. Wells is the Peace Education Coordinator for Nuclear Age peace Foundation. This article can also be found at: http://www.change-links.org/leahwells.htm