Page One

WELDON RUCKER 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

What a sad day for Berkeley it will be on Nov. 1. We get a wonderful city manager who treats everyone fairly, and then he moves on to the joys of retirement. Those are very, very big shoes to fill. I just want to publicly thank you Weldon for everything you have done for all of us.  

Kriss Worthington 

• 

CONNERLY RESPONDS 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Although Mr. J. Douglas Allen-Taylor and I reach different conclusions about Proposition 54, I respect the civil manner in which he articulates his position. And, I must say that he makes several observations with which I agree. His is an important contribution to the debate about race that our society ought to be having. 

Ward Connerly 

SOUND AND FURY  

Editors, Daily Planet: 

The more sound and fury in the run up to the Oct. 7 vote the more I am convinced that nothing significant will happen. The reason is that California is, for better and for worse, simply too big (ranked sixth among the economies of the world) to be much moved by one person at the helm. Turning the wheel produces very little change in direction because there’s just too much necessary bureaucracy connecting the bridge to the rudder. It’s wiser, therefore, to stay with the ills we have. 

Marvin Chachere  

San Pablo 

• 

EAST BAY DEPOT 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

As someone who worked with the East Bay Depot for Creative Reuse in various capacities for seven or eight years, I want to express my support for the statement published here regarding the “Depot” (Daily Planet, Aug.29-Sept.1). This store was started with good intentions, and for some time it served a valuable role in the arts, education and environmental communities, but in the last few years it has become a corrupt, repressive and reactionary institution. 

Its workers found that the only way they could get respect from their bosses was to affiliate with a union. Then, even before a contract could be finalized, the Depot fired or laid off almost all its union workers. The union members who were not fired were intimidated and harassed into leaving the union. The scabs who were hired to replace the union workers are understandably afraid to get involved with the union because they know they would lose their jobs as a consequence. Yet the Depot continues to masquerade as a progressive, community-based organization. This must change. 

Although, as an artist, I used to do a lot of shopping at this store, I have vowed to not spend another dime there until there is a change in management, and real reform in labor practices at the Depot’s store and and in its other programs . I urge all supporters of workers’ rights to do the same. 

Doug Cover 

• 

LABOR RESPONSE  

As an employee of the City of Berkeley and a member of a labor organization, I feel compelled to respond to a recent commentary by Barbara Gilbert promulgating breaking labor contracts by invoking sections of their Memoranda of Agreements which actually pertain to drastic economic conditions. 

Admittedly, I do not have the vantage point of a previous mayor’s aide, but I believe I have a more balanced perspective of the city’s economic struggle by virtue of actually having participated in formal negotiations between the City of Berkeley and Labor Union IBEW Local 1245. I must take exception to Ms. Gilbert’s intimation that labor employees are primarily responsible for the city’s economic problems. Her assertion that 80 percent of the city’s deficits are directly attributable to employee costs is misinformed and grossly exaggerated. 

Virtually all employee benefits, whether continuing or newly acquired, are obtained in lieu of actual pay. When negotiating, it must be understood that city workers are targeted for the median and are not necessarily at the top of “comparable” municipalities based on total compensation. 

The economic reality is that the cost of living is high not only for the taxpayers of the City of Berkeley but also for the workers who reside elsewhere in the Bay Area, and if the workers cannot obtain a cost of living increase they are not even treading water. 

Labor costs are relatively predictable and stable. They are not likely to jump out of nowhere, which is why we have formal negotiations often resulting in long-term contracts. Labor unions have the unenviable job of trying to hold the status quo. Amidst our president’s optimism for our economic future and California’s obvious distress it is not at all apparent that it is “necessary” to break union contracts and circumvent the legitimate negotiation process. 

If the City of Berkeley were to renege on its contractual responsibilities, there would be a devastatingly chilling effect on future negotiations. What would be the point to negotiating if either party could just not honor its commitments? All credibility would be lost. 

To Ms. Gilbert, I would say that we workers are not the cause of your economic malcontent. Rather, it is the selection by your city officials and administrators of which programs to adopt that determines whether or not large sums of money are well spent. Not only existing but also newly promoted programs all draw on the General Fund and tend to contribute to deficits. In all fairness, it is a daunting responsibility to prioritize and choose which programs to endorse particularly in such a diverse and vibrant community which demands a multiplicity of services from it’s employees. 

All programs are proposed as laudable but are they necessary and affordable? It takes courage to deny any program. Perhaps that is why it is almost impossible to “just say no” to any “special-interest” group. 

Regardless of the program, we city workers are the people that make your city officials’ promises real. Services simply do not exist without us. We believe that the taxpayers of the City of Berkeley acknowledge, appreciate and support our continuing commitment to serve them to the best of our capability. 

Despite our efforts, it seems that in essence, Ms. Gilbert is demanding that labor not only provide the necessary services but also fund them as well. 

Inevitably, when times are lean, there are those opportunists who immediately adopt the convenient expedient of targeting employee benefits which falls under the general rubric of “let’s cut the fat” while deflecting attention from the real costs. It is the proponents of just this kind of glib anti-labor rhetoric that reduces the American standard of living for workers. 

So, Barbara, while you are busily exhorting the taxpayers to cut the fat, can’t we also cut the crap? 

Rick Chan 

• 

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH 

Editors, Daily Planet 

What’s up with Susan Parker’s ongoing rant about San Francisco State? If it’s supposed to be humor, I don’t find it funny. If it is expose, it’s so narrow and one-sided that it undercuts the useful information. Her latest installment (“San Francisco State: A Kafka-Like Experience,” Daily Planet, Sept. 5-8) was actually troubling. Why is she going out of her way to prove that the institution’s problems are systemic and have nothing to do with California’s current economic mess?  

I went through SF State’s graduate writing program in the late 70s and returned briefly in the mid-90s. My experience wasn’t at all like Ms. Parker’s or those she quotes. I mean, sure, there were a few absurd seeming hoops to jump through and this or that was misplaced or moved like molasses through the system. I was obliged to make phone calls to keep things moving or arrive at school an hour early to deal with some office or another. All of this was a bit of a pain, but nothing to get in a tizzy about. As for the staff, though a few seemed to take pleasure in their own ignorance, most were competent enough. Indeed, a few were patient with me, pointing out in measured tones that if I’d just paid closer attention to instructions I wouldn’t be in whatever small mess. 

So I was taken aback by Ms. Parker’s second column. Had I missed something? Been one of the passive sheep without knowing it? Lucked out? I called around to a few friends, family members and acquaintances who had been to SF State to see where I stood. I was born in the East Bay and have spent most of my 51 years in Berkeley. The group consisted of those who had been undergraduates, graduate students, both, and in various fields of study. Their time of attendance spanned from the early 60s to 2001 and their responses were very similar. They all had some specific complaint or another, some story, but—in overview—they just shrugged and said “It’s a system, you learn to work it.” Since these weren’t a bunch of wussy folks by any means, I felt relieved. 

Given this, what was I (or any of the Planet’s readers) to make of Ms. Parker’s article? I was happy that she had the nerve to complain so vocally—a public service!—but wasn’t there something a little dangerous in her presenting such a skewed characterization? Especially when the Bush administration seems hell bent on privatizing everything from the public schools to the National Park Service? There are now and have always been inefficiencies in large public institutions. This is an important issue. But we’re in serious trouble when the liberal press begins taking ill-considered potshots at the public sector. Not that we should follow an “If 

you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all” policy, but, c’mon, give us a break. Ms. Parker sounds like a Republican in liberal clothing and I’m surprised her articles slipped past the Planet’s editorial staff.  

Enough is enough! 

George Porter 

Berkeley