History of AFL-CIO labor union
Re: “AFL-CIO quarrel tests labor direction,” June 20 editorial.
The CIO was formed in 1935 by John L. Lewis and six other progressive AFL union leaders so that unskilled industrial workers also could enjoy the benefits of collective bargaining. Until then, only skilled tradesmen could join unions. Workers flocked to join unions, and as a result the middle class of this nation was expanded exponentially.
No other social movement in the history of our country has done so much for so many. The workers’ higher wages flowed back into the economy and the nation flourished.
During the Great Depression, when unions were growing, those on the union staffs were called “pork choppers” by the rank- and-file members. Their perception of the union staff was that they were living “high on the hog,” a common expression in those days to describe the more affluent of society who presumably dined on pork chops instead of less expensive cuts of meat.
It is ironic that while those “pork choppers” were organizing new members or negotiating contracts for the rank-and-file, they slept four to a hotel room by taking the mattress off the bed and placing it on the floor. Then they doubled up on the mattress and on the box springs. Instead of going to the local restaurant for dinner, they bought a loaf of bread, some slices of bologna and “dined” in their crowded hotel room. The pork they ate came in a can mixed with beans. That ain’t exactly living “high on the hog.”
The Post editorial should have emphasized that the decline in union membership in the private sector is because of automation (check your own composing room), the shifting of manufacturing jobs to other countries (China as a prime example) and now outsourcing of other jobs such as call centers in India and Pakistan.
Present-day union leadership has done well to keep providing services to the members in spite of major losses in membership. And, as was pointed out, an anti-labor president and Congress add to the challenge.
Our nation now has a service economy. Another old saying is that sometime in the future we’ll all be doing each other’s laundry just to have a job.
Gerald Archuleta, Denver
—————————————-
CU’s plan to base tuition on income
Re: “CU offers 15% solution,” June 21 news story.
The University of Colorado has now proposed that resident tuition be based on income, with those with family incomes over $80,000 paying more for the same service than those with lower family incomes. This is either outright discrimination or tantamount to an attempt on CU’s part to make tax policy.
Applying a differential tuition rate based on income is no more than a graduated tax on top of the graduated federal income tax on which the state income tax is based. CU is trying to usurp the role of the legislature or the people on tax policy. If we are going to charge tuition based on family income, why not extend that idea to the real necessities of life such as food, clothing, shelter and health care. I’m sure we would all enjoy having our grocery bill calculated on the basis of our tax returns.
Gordon J. Johnson, Broomfield
The writer is former budget director for the University of Colorado at Boulder.
—————————————-
Outrage over tactics leading up to Iraq war
Re: “Starting a war the old way,” June 22 Ed Quillen column.
While Ed Quillen makes many historical references to the U.S. government’s pattern of goading its enemies to shoot first in many wars, he completely misses the point at hand. The “outrage” expressed by many people is not primarily in response to the American and British tactics leading up to the war. It is outrage at the admission in the Downing Street Minutes that the administration “was fixing its intelligence” around the decision to invade Iraq, a decision that had already been made.
More than 1,700 American lives have been lost, and tens of thousands of lives have been severely altered by this conflict. To find out that the administration may have deliberately misled the nation and Congress in its findings, that we are now being told by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that this is “a generational commitment,” is heart-rending at best and criminal at worst.
Nathan Behan, Denver
—————————————-
Air Force rape therapist
Re: “Therapist opts to skip high court – for now,” June 20 news story.
The Colorado Psychological Association fully supports Jennifer Bier, the licensed clinical social worker who is acting with professional responsibility to protect the privacy of her client’s mental health records in the case of a former Air Force cadet who says she was raped by another cadet.
The practice of psychotherapy is predicated upon the client’s right to confidentiality. Psychotherapists take this responsibility very seriously. Research studies have repeatedly demonstrated that clients significantly value confidentiality; that they are less likely to discuss certain information without the promise of confidentiality; and that psychotherapy is less effective when clients do not feel safe enough to fully disclose to their psychotherapist. There is almost no clinical situation in which this need for safety is more critical than for rape victims who are already suffering from the trauma of having been violated.
Although all states have some form of law addressing privileged communication, Colorado can stand proud in having one of the strongest state laws in the nation. The U.S. Supreme Court further affirmed the psychotherapist-patient privilege in 1996, although the ethical and legal responsibility to protect a client’s disclosures existed long before that.
Lisa Kaley-Isley, President, on behalf of the Colorado Psychological Association Board of Directors
—————————————-
Senate weather bill
They’re at it again – politicians trying to steal from from the poor taxpayer to give to rich corporate donors.
Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., has introduced Senate Bill 786, which would prohibit the National Weather Service from competing with private-sector companies in distributing the weather information and forecasts we taxpayers pay to produce.
We’ll still pay for the NWS to develop the info; we just won’t be able to get it without paying a middleman. Apparently, the NWS has done too good a job; the “free market” can’t compete without legislating the NWS out of business.
All Coloradans should oppose this bill. Not only are we dependent on NWS forecasts, alerts and warnings in this extreme-weather area, but National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists are an important part of our economy.
We need the NWS, which is part of NOAA, to continue its long and distinguished history of service to the public, not hamstring its effort to distribute critical information.
Ralph Taylor, Englewood
—————————————-
Should Denver ban smoking or wait for state?
Re: “Statewide smoking ban best,” June 13 editorial.
I disagree that it is more logical for Denver to wait for the state to enact a smoking ban. Unless Denver takes action, it seems that the state legislators would have more reasons to avoid a smoking ban, for if the state’s capital is unwilling to enforce a ban, why should the entire state? On the other hand, if Denver does adopt a complete smoking ban (including all bars and restaurants), then the example is set for the rest of Colorado’s cities.
Denver needs to join Boulder, Louisville, Longmont and other cities in protecting the health of all of its workers. If New York City can do it, why can’t Denver?
I am a former smoker and now have a young daughter. I completely avoid restaurants that allow smokers since I do not wish to expose my daughter to this health hazard. Even if I still smoked and had no children, I would avoid smoke-filled restaurants since I do not wish to patronize companies that knowingly allow harm to come to their workers.
Anne Mitchell, Evergreen
TO REACH US
Phone: 303-820-1331
Fax: 303-820-1502
E-mail: openforum@denverpost.com
Mail: The Open Forum, The Denver Post, 1560 Broadway, Denver, 80202
Letters guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 200 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address and day and evening phone numbers. Letters may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.
