(updated, 11:50 am, Corrected 12:33 PM)
So much to blog, so little time. I'm writing a paper, so bear with me. Students at Minnesota are
sitting in (or were yesterday --
click here for pictures) and demanding to talk to the president of the university about the strike and tuition hikes. Sounds like they've done an incredible job of linking student issues to those of the striking clerical workers. (Laura smith spoke there on Friday.)
UPDATE:The Sit-in ended succesfully at 6 PM yesterday. Read about it
here.
Meanwhile there's lots of debate in New Haven about the Ward One aldermanic race. While Kirchick says
"A Vote For Healey Is A Vote For Proto", The YDN has
endorsed Ben, and Abi Vladeck points out the hypocrisy of Kruger's position on Yale and Taxes in an
incisive and biting op-ed.
Yale's paternalistic attitude is arrogant and, moreover, ineffective. If Yale is truly interested in improving New Haven -- from which its workforce is drawn and in which its students live and perform their extracurricular activities -- it will go beyond installing bluephones and bringing to Broadway national chains (whose profits flee the city faster than a senior on graduation day, before they've had any time to trickle down); it will pay its taxes like a good citizen. That is the kind of town-gown relationship that I, for one, would like to see, and that is why, on November 4th, I will be voting for a candidate who will continue to fight to make sure that our city government has the funds it needs to make New Haven a stronger, cleaner, safer city with good schools, good jobs and good homes for all its residents.
They didn't make it into the online additiion, but Calhoun students critical of Master Sledge's vocal Krugerism (and, More pointedly, his public attacks on Healey,) wrote a number of letters to the YDN, several of which were published in today's YDN. Here's one of those letters, courtesy of Alyysa Rosenberg over at
Ben For Alderman. This Letter to the Editor is by Amia Srinivasan, the campaign coordinator of the Yale College Democrats:
When the Calhoun freshmen were blindfolded and herded out onto a muddy Old Campus for initiation into their college, it was a fun reminder of the importance of college solidarity and respect. Unfortunately, my Calhoun spirit was soon shaken when I received an email from our Master, inviting all Calhoun students to a reception for Dan Kruger, who is challenging Alderman Ben Healey for the Ward One seat.
When I first became aware of Master Sledge's strong support of Dan, I saw it as an encouragement of involvement in local politics. My feelings, however, have changed. First, there was Master Sledge's contribution to Dan's campaign, a choice that I regard as personal and within his rights. Then there was the op/ed in the YDN; even then, I reminded myself of my conviction in freedom of speech. There is a difference, however, between free speech and the use of a position of power to actively push a candidate. When Master Sledge uses his living room in Calhoun College, which is to at least some degree a public gathering place, for an event that is meant to encourage the students he has a considerable amount of influence over to vote a certain way, I believe he is over-stepping the boundaries of his position.
A residential college should be a place of comfort and security; unfortunately, for me, my Master's avid support of Dan Kruger has undermined this ideal in Calhoun. I am not overly concerned by the political effects of the reception; while Dan is at the reception, Ben will be going door-to-door, as he does most nights, directly speaking to voters. This is emblematic of the differences between Ben and Dan, and if voters are perceptive of these distinctions, the results will manifest themselves on election day.
I just hope, however, that no Hounies have felt discouraged about their political views, or have felt pressured to adopt those of their Master. For now, I am happy to still be in Bingham, distanced from the political pressure being exerted by someone whose role I believed was to foster a close-knit environment, rather than to sway my vote or divide us along political lines.
Yale's going to start cutting M&P Jobs. No one's really surprised by this, (thank god for union job security language,) but it's kinda funny watching the Register try to reconcile a supposed $30 mil defecit with a 9% endowment increase.
Meanwhile, in NYC, Local 100, the union i worked for a summer ago, is
prepared to strike restaurants throughout the city.
As in many recent labor disputes, the major issues are health and pension benefits. The union is asking for a wage increase of 50 cents an hour and no change in health and pension plans. Most of the restaurants have separate contracts with the union, and want the workers to pay a greater share of costs for medical care and some want to stop contributing to pension plans. A few restaurants have said they would not agree to a wage increase unless the workers accepted the health and pension demands.
Despite Mr. Giovanetti and Mr. Sherry's conciliatory words, Brooks Bitterman, the research director for the union, said he knew of no restaurants that were willing to settle. He also said he had never seen such solidarity in the union, which voted 443 to 26 on Saturday to authorize a strike.
"A dishwasher gets only $7 or $8 and a prep cook is making $10 to $12," Mr. Bitterman said. "These people stick around in these jobs, they've given so much to the restaurants to make them work. They're furious at management and don't see the need for givebacks on pensions and health care. They sense that the restaurants are A.O.K., in fine shape. It's crazy that some of the highest-grossing restaurants in the country want givebacks. There's an absurd amount of money pouring into these places and management has misjudged the worker's anger."
While some restaurants have yet to recover from the effects of Sept. 11, the economic downturn, the decrease in tourism and higher expenses, Chuck Hunt, the executive vice president of the Greater New York City chapter of the New York State Restaurant Association, said overall, the industry is regaining its health.
"Right now the restaurants are doing all right," Mr. Hunt said, "they're coming back, improving."
Mr. Sherry said the Old Homestead is doing well.
The owners of La Caravelle, Rita and André Jammet, paint a less glowing picture. "Business has been up and down and maybe it's near last year's levels," Mrs. Jammet said. "Our food costs have gone up a good 15 percent, especially for beef. Insurance went way up after Sept. 11, and real estate taxes are up. And this is not a good time to raise prices." Mr. Jammet added that if there is a strike he and his wife will "try to run the show" themselves.
Mr. Demand, the union negotiator, said he thought the talks slowed when the owners called in federal mediators on Monday.
Richard Wilsker, a partner at McGuire Woods, the law firm which represents 17 of the restaurants, including the nine bargaining jointly, said he thought that move would make things go more smoothly.
Mr. Wilsker said the union had made substantial concessions on wages and health benefits, but Mr. Demand denied that.
The union has extended the negotiation period until mid-November for the Oyster Bar and Gallagher's. "The employees are aware of the difficult times these restaurants are having," Mr. Wilsker said. "They know that a union house pays two to three times nonunion. It's sad, because so many of these old places are threatened."
Bill Granfield, the president of the union local, said while marching down 52nd Street that he was encouraged by some of the negotiations with the restaurants in the last few days.
But when asked if he thought there was going to be a strike, he answered, "Yes."
