Bishop Martino's Ad: Labor, Church and community experts weigh in; say it's a mix of slick packaging by anti-union consultants and indefensible logic
Since last Sunday, and continuing every day throughout the week, the Diocese has placed full page ads in local newspapers containing Bishop Martino's version of why the Diocese has seen fit to deny the members of the SDACT their right to form a union to represent them. Even a cursory study of such an ad campaign reveals a variety of insights as to who is behind it and, with a little more study, the flaws in His Excellency's logic behind the denial of our teachers' rights. Experts in the field of labor, Canon law and community affairs have all recently studied the ad and weighed in with their unanimous verdict.
It would appear that the Diocese is paying a union-busting firm to help shape its campaign. The double speak is just too slick to be done without the help of those who are professional at it. That has been our contention since the ad first appeared last Sunday, and that opinion was immediately communicated to our members. A quick search of the Internet for the phrase "union avoidance strategy" will yield the following advice from the union-busting playbook:
1. Tell the workers and the public that the union's leaders are greedy, manipulative and self-serving. It is only they who want the union, while other workers are simply being misled.
2. Tell your customers that the union only cares about money.
3. Tell your customers that if the union comes in they will be forced to pay more for the product.
4. Tell the workers and the public that your financial condition, always tenuous, will be so adversely affected that the business might close, taking with it everyone's jobs.
5. Offer the employees an alternative method of addressing their concerns, one of course, controlled by the employer and which would brook no opposition from the workers. (One like the Diocesan Employee Council.)
Again, if you examine the ad, you can tell that it hit on every point.
Since last Sunday, a number of those who monitor anti-union employers have contacted us to support our initial suspicions. Today, one of those experts weighed in publicly, as you can see in a news story published on page one of the Times Leader.
As far as the logic for denying teachers their union rights, here is what in essence Bishop Martino is saying. He admits workers have a right to form a union. But, he says he has proof to show that, should he acknowledge that right, he would be putting Catholic education in jeopardy. Here, say the experts on the Church and labor rights, that "logic" falls apart. To come to such a conclusion, the Bishop is under an obligation first to dialogue with the party whose rights would be negated, in this case, the teachers and their union representatives. This, Bishop Martino has never done. Secondly, he would need to undertake a detailed study that in the end would produce objectively-arrived-at facts proving exactly where the SDACT in our thirty year history (during which we have negotiated hundreds of contracts) put our former school employers in jeopardy. Where are the results of such a study? Once doing that, he would finally have to prove where our intent (were we to be recognized), would be to act deliberately to bring down the system of Catholic education in the Diocese.
Father Sinclair Oubre, a Catholic Canon lawyer, and moderator of the the "Catholic Labor Network," has commented saying, "Bishop Martino's letter just takes my breath away. If his logic is followed in all Catholic institutions, there could never be a union. Moreover, another thing that defies logic is to say you are not against unions when you spend a great deal of Diocesan resources on people who make a living (i.e. the anti-union consultants) trying to undermine Catholic social teaching."
Finally, "Citizens' Voice" editor, Paul Golias, in his "Our Valley" (Tuesday%2C%20February%2019%2C%202008.jpg) column has commented that in denying our teachers their right to a union, "[a]n unnecessary and divisive wedge has been driven into the fabric of our region by Bishop Joseph F. Martino of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Scranton."
One has to ask, can all of these experts be wrong?
It would appear that the Diocese is paying a union-busting firm to help shape its campaign. The double speak is just too slick to be done without the help of those who are professional at it. That has been our contention since the ad first appeared last Sunday, and that opinion was immediately communicated to our members. A quick search of the Internet for the phrase "union avoidance strategy" will yield the following advice from the union-busting playbook:
1. Tell the workers and the public that the union's leaders are greedy, manipulative and self-serving. It is only they who want the union, while other workers are simply being misled.
2. Tell your customers that the union only cares about money.
3. Tell your customers that if the union comes in they will be forced to pay more for the product.
4. Tell the workers and the public that your financial condition, always tenuous, will be so adversely affected that the business might close, taking with it everyone's jobs.
5. Offer the employees an alternative method of addressing their concerns, one of course, controlled by the employer and which would brook no opposition from the workers. (One like the Diocesan Employee Council.)
Again, if you examine the ad, you can tell that it hit on every point.
Since last Sunday, a number of those who monitor anti-union employers have contacted us to support our initial suspicions. Today, one of those experts weighed in publicly, as you can see in a news story published on page one of the Times Leader.
As far as the logic for denying teachers their union rights, here is what in essence Bishop Martino is saying. He admits workers have a right to form a union. But, he says he has proof to show that, should he acknowledge that right, he would be putting Catholic education in jeopardy. Here, say the experts on the Church and labor rights, that "logic" falls apart. To come to such a conclusion, the Bishop is under an obligation first to dialogue with the party whose rights would be negated, in this case, the teachers and their union representatives. This, Bishop Martino has never done. Secondly, he would need to undertake a detailed study that in the end would produce objectively-arrived-at facts proving exactly where the SDACT in our thirty year history (during which we have negotiated hundreds of contracts) put our former school employers in jeopardy. Where are the results of such a study? Once doing that, he would finally have to prove where our intent (were we to be recognized), would be to act deliberately to bring down the system of Catholic education in the Diocese.
Father Sinclair Oubre, a Catholic Canon lawyer, and moderator of the the "Catholic Labor Network," has commented saying, "Bishop Martino's letter just takes my breath away. If his logic is followed in all Catholic institutions, there could never be a union. Moreover, another thing that defies logic is to say you are not against unions when you spend a great deal of Diocesan resources on people who make a living (i.e. the anti-union consultants) trying to undermine Catholic social teaching."
Finally, "Citizens' Voice" editor, Paul Golias, in his "Our Valley" (Tuesday%2C%20February%2019%2C%202008.jpg) column has commented that in denying our teachers their right to a union, "[a]n unnecessary and divisive wedge has been driven into the fabric of our region by Bishop Joseph F. Martino of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Scranton."
One has to ask, can all of these experts be wrong?
posted by SDACT at
1:39 PM
1 Comments:
The bishop needs to understand that respect is not given freely; it is to be earned. In order to gain respect, one first has to give respect.
Elaine
By
Elaine, At
February 22, 2008 at 3:10 PM
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home