To the Editor:
Thank you for covering AlliedBarton's decision to punish five security guards for union organizing, including their submission of a petition to President Gutmann. Yet your headline, "Guards' union tactics backfire" (10/4/05) wrongly suggests that the guards are to blame. A better headline, perhaps, "Guards punished over union petition," would rightly suggest that the legally and ethically questionable behavior is AlliedBarton's obvious punishment of union organizers.
This story raises serious, unanswered questions. AlliedBarton suspended the guards and moved them to undesirable posts, yet claims never to interfere with workers' right to unionize. What, then, is their motivation? No answer given.
Penn claims that the issue is between AlliedBarton and the guards, but who told the company about the petition? Further, isn't it within the school's rights to demand socially responsible behavior‹¨« or at least to insist that nobody should be suspended in Penn's name? No explanation provided.
GET-UP strongly supports the right of all University workers‹¨« from graduate employees to security guards‹¨« to organize. We say shame on AlliedBarton for union busting, and shame on Penn for supporting their tactics.
Bill Herman
The author is a Ph.D. student in Communication and a spokesman for GET-UP
