Fitznseizures!
Last updated:
9/29/02; 4:33:21 PM


September 2002
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          
Aug   Oct

Home


Subscribe to this blog in Radio:
Subscribe to "Fitznseizures!" in Radio UserLand.

Click to see the XML version of this web page.

E-mail this blog's author, Pat Christensen:
Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.
 

Sunday, September 29, 2002

I was working on the Illinois weekly papers when the call came in about the taxi driver accused of molestation of a mentally retarded girl.

The taxi driver had been hired to take this girl and several other students to and from their classes each day. One day he was accused of taking one of the girls, the last one on his route, out behind an ice cream stand and raping her.

A friend of the family called the story in to us and I talked to the girl's parents, the school, the taxi company and the taxi cab driver himself. I wrote the story.

About a month later I lost my job at the paper. I went to work briefly for a social services organization that dealt in fair housing, among other things. About a year into the job, one of my coworkers (who did job training) cornered me after a luncheon meeting and asked me if I was the same person who'd written the story about the cab driver. I acknowledged that I'd written a story.

"What do you really think?" he asked me. "Was the guy guilty? Did he really do it? 'Cause, you know, he never admitted it."

I told him that I'd interviewed the man once and couldn't form a proper opinion based on that.

"But you must have some opinion," this man persisted.

I told him that not only didn't I have an opinion, I hadn't followed the story after leaving the paper. He informed me that the cab driver had been fired, and found guilty in court. He paid a stiff penalty, and was on probation, having done no real jail time, but that he'd pled innocent and persisted in insisting on his innocence even afterward.

"Now the family wants to know whether to pursue this further," he added.

I was puzzled. The rape, if such had occurred, had happened almost two full years ago at this point. The cabdriver had been found guilty and fired from his job. He'd lost his license and would never drive a cab again. What was there to pursue?

"Well," he said, "they're thinking of taking it to civil court, suing him or something like that. They just don't feel he's paid the price. They don't feel they have justice. I was wondering if you could help somehow. You're the only reporter I know of who actually talked to this guy. You might know something that could help them."

I thought long and hard for a moment. My coworker seemed quite serious and concerned for his friend.

"The only thing I can think of to say that might help them is to ask how much of their lives they want to give this man," I said finally. My coworker was puzzled.

"Well," I explained, "two years ago, their daughter was violated, if that's what happened. That was traumatic in and of itself. Then came the investigation and that must have been traumatic. Then the trial process and the questioning and that must have taken a toll as well. Finally it's over and instead of moving on with their lives, they're still focused on this one incident that happened two years ago. They're thinking of pursuing it and forcing their daughter to relive it again and again and again. They are, in effect, handing this man control over their lives and their daughters life instead of taking back that control and moving on. Since he's already lost his job and his license and been judged guilty by a court of law, I'm not sure whether pursuing it at this point is justice or just obsession."

"So the question becomes, how much of their lives, and their daughter's life are they willing to hand over to this man?"

My coworker had no answer to that and a few weeks later I left that job for another and had no idea how it all came out.

Now George W. Bush is pursuing Saddam Hussein, in part as he admits, because Hussain tried to kill his father several years ago. There is no clear evidence that Hussein presents any immediate threat to us or anyone else, but Bush is determined to pursue this, against reason and the ongoing entreaties of other countries, the UN and his own people.

So my question to George is this: How much of your life are you willing to just hand over to this man to control as he sees fit?

And more importantly…how much of our lives are you going to hand over in the process?
2:34:53 PM    comment []


Monday, September 23, 2002

Well, it's been a long silence, but my computer's been down for almost two weeks. And it's late tonight, so this isn't gonna be a long one, but it's been running around the little rat-trap of my brain so I might as well let it out to play.

Remember The Twilight Zone? No, not the ones they did in the 80's and 90's. The original Rod Serling series. The well-crafted creation, largely based on well-written short stories by award-winning writers? That Twilight Zone?

Well, we're living in it. Now.

I had to read the script to one TZ show 'way back in junior high school and it stuck with me. The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street. I believe Serling may have written that one himself. Do you remember it?

It was about a group of small-town residents. And one night their electricity goes out. Their cars won't start. Their phones and radios go silent. But in a slightly weird way. And they all get together and panic a bit. Then one man goes and checks to see what's going on in another neighborhood. And two men attempt to go to the authorities, but are stopped by a youngster who's read, maybe, too many comic books, who suggests that it's aliens doing it. Aliens who look just like the people on Maple Street.

And at first people scoff. But then one neighbor's car works and then dies again. And the suspicion and accusations start, fingers are pointed and secret animosities are being unleashed at erstwhile friends and neighbors. A small group of people quickly become a mob, despite the efforts of cooler heads:

Steve
(interrupting)
Charlie, don't tell me what I can afford! And stop telling me who's dangerous and who isn't and who's safe and who's a menace.
(he turns to the group and shouts)
And you're with him too - all of you! You're standing here all set to crucify - all set to find a scapegoat - all desperate to point some kind of a finger at a neighbor! Well now look, friends, the only thing that's gonna happen is that we'll eat each other up alive--

And just at the height of the fear, when one neighbor after another has been accused, someone comes toward them along the darkened street. They can't see who it is. And one of the crowd gets a shotgun. And the shotgun is fired. And the lights suddenly come on. And they discover they've shot one of their own neighbors, the man who went to see about the next block over. And with that it should be over, but it's not. Because the lights are still going out and coming on. First in one house, then another. And instead of calming down, the hysteria mounts. Rapidly. Rocks are thrown. People are taking sides and chaos is ruling them all.

And then we draw back and find ourselves looking at two figures standing in the open doorway of what is clearly a rocket ship.

Figure One
Understand the procedure now? Just stop a few of their machines and radios and telephones and lawn mowers...throw them into darkness for a few hours and then you just sit back and watch the pattern.

Figure Two
And this pattern is always the same?

Figure One
With few variations. They pick the most dangerous enemy they can find...and it's themselves. And all we need do is sit back...and watch.

And so doctors are arrested on airplanes because they look Mideastern. And a cop car that should have rightfully followed me along one street, because I was speeding at the time and not wearing a seatbelt, instead chose to follow the car next to me who turned down another street, because the driver and the passenger looked vaguely Arabic. And we all sit glued to our televisions each night, ostensibly to get the weather report and the ball scores, but really to see if anything exploded in our area that day. And even the most rational of us inch closer and closer to that frame of mind where doing something, anything, to hit back at the "monster in the dark" feels better than doing nothing.

And Serling summed it up in his voiceover epilogue for a show that was, at that time, more about the HUAC hearings than either Bin Laden or Hussein, but which has frightening resonance today:

Narrator's Voice
The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices - to be found only in the minds of men. For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all of its own for the children...the children yet unborn.
(a pause)
And the pity of it is...that these things cannot be confined to...The Twilight Zone!

And somehow, I wonder what Serling would think, or write, if he were still with us today?


11:17:21 PM    comment []


Thursday, September 05, 2002

I’ve seen pieces on it for the past several day, but this weeks’ Spinsanity (sorry those of you who aren’t subscribers…you’ll have to do a search for non-subscriber-only articles on this one) peeves me in ways I can’t begin to name.

 

The fast down-and-dirty version of this little affair is an article in the Washington Times alleging (in someone guarded tones) that the NEA is using a website devoted to teaching students about the events of last Sept. 11 to advocate blaming the U.S. and not Osama bin Laden for the attack on the World Trade Center last year. The fact that this is misleading, incorrect, hopelessly slanted and just plain not true has yet to be widely disseminated in the “mainstream media”, though the initial charge has gotten great coverage on television talk shows, radio call-in programs and some other media outlets.

 

What galls me the most is how the “liberal” media still don’t get it. Which seems to be why they’re letting it happen. What this is about has NOTHING to do with Sept. 11 or patriotism or even who-said-what-where-and-when.

 

It’s a power play. Pure and simple. And we’re about to let them get away with it. They’ve done it at least once before, actually twice, in recent memory. And still we don’t learn. Are we a nation of Alzheimer’s patients? We can’t remember anything that didn’t happen within the past six months?

 

Does the phrase, “card-carrying member of the ACLU” strike a chord? How about “Are you now, or have you ever been…”? The right wants power and at apparently any price. They’ve been waging a war for the last 50 years against public education.  They’re just using slightly more sophisticated methods of doing it. And the “liberal” community are LETTING THEM DO IT!

 

Sorry for shouting, but I keep thinking it’s just that you all can’t hear what people are really saying.

 

This has nothing to do with what the NEA either said or didn’t say. But teachers, as a group, have some power because of the NEA. And the Far Right, particularly the Christian Far Right have both loathed and feared public school teachers for as far back as their history goes, really. From Jerry Falwell to Pat Robertson, parents have been warned to worry about the “hidden messages” their children receive in school. Robertson in particular has advised parents to keep their children from studying too much, in order to “save their souls” from ideological corruption from the forces of academia.

 

But the vast majority of their “flock” can’t afford private school and aren’t equipped to do homeschooling. So preaching and warning and occasional attacks on school boards (even joining school boards) have had only limited and temporary effect. What they feel is needed now is a systemic attack on the institution of teaching at all levels. And what touches all levels of public education, at least where teaching is concerned? That’s right. The NEA.

 

You can’t take on every individual teacher in the country, but you can demonize them as a group via the NEA and, if you can disempower the NEA or at least keep it on the defensive, fighting on your turf, using your terms, you can largely control the profession itself.

 

And even if you can't, so long as you control the syntax, you control the debate, which is being pushed further and further to the right until all other voices can be systematically drowned out. (We have honstly conservative Democrats, but when's the last time you met an honest-to-God liberal Republican? Or even what used to be called a "moderate" Republican?)

 

And it’s having an effect. Witness the NEA’s website, where they apparently removed a perfectly inoffensive link to a perfectly inoffensive article. And, folks, this is the Far Right just getting warmed up. You have no idea what lengths they’ll go to, especially now that they have the bit in their teeth in such a public way. Check out People For the American Way’s website for a good lesson on exactly how far the Far Right, particularly the Christian Far Right is prepared to go.

 

As for why our esteemed and much-maligned “liberal media” has simply rolled over on this one? Well, let’s look at our “liberal” media. Who owns it? Six large and largely-conservative corporations. Do they WANT a “liberal” take on the news? No. Because our current government is what protects and nurtures them. Which is why they want a pro-business, pro-government take. And that’s what they have. Good reporters aren’t all silent out of fear or calumny. Many are simply silenced by those who own the presses.

 

Case in point. The first chain of weekly papers I ever worked for (not the ones we tried the union effort with, their nearest rivals over the state line) were owned by a man who was regarded as a fairly good journalist, if not the smarted businessman on the block. Still, he was the publisher of a chain of 15 regional newspapers and also served on a number of civic organizations and business boards of directors.

 

When the S&L crisis hit and banks in our region started closing, he was careful to track their downfalls, writing editorials carefully outlining how each bank had fallen. He was not loved by these institutions, but he continued to write his editorials. At the time, I thought it was brave of him.

 

Then a bank in the town our chain was headquartered in failed and was put under government supervision.

 

We had a brand new managing editor and, since this town was part of my official “beat” (I was in charge of two of the regional papers), she suggested that I do a “man on the street” piece. She wanted me to go across the street and stand outside the bank and interview customers as they entered or exited the bank, to get their reaction to the bank’s takeover.

 

It seemed reasonable enough, so I collected my gear and headed out the door. Which is when the publisher loomed up in front of me and cordially asked where I was going. I told him. He smiled and said, “And you think this is a good idea?”

 

I was younger then and a bit naïve. “Yes, I do,” I said. Behind him, I could see one of my coworkers frantically waving at me and shaking her head emphatically. But I’d opened my mouth and now would have to stick to my guns.

 

“Well, I don’t,” the publisher said, still terribly calm. “So what you’re going to do is go back to your desk, call the bank, find out who’s in charge, get a statement from them and then write your story based on whatever statement you are given. And nothing else. Understand?”

 

At this point my new managing editor stepped between us and asked to talk to the publisher in private. They left the room together and I sank down at my desk. My coworker scooted her chair over to me. “What were you thinking?” she scolded. “Don’t you know what’s going on here?”

 

Of course, I didn’t.

 

“He’s on the board of directors for that bank!” she said. “The last thing he wants is an expose on his bank! If you’re smart, you’ll shut your mouth and do as you’re told this time. Or you’ll be out looking for another job, believe me!”

 

Now I was in a quandry. I’d already publicly said I agreed with my managing editor. And I did. It was a perfectly reasonable way to cover the story. Still, it was his newspaper and, though people get it confused, “freedom of the press” really only refers to the freedom of those who OWN the press to publish what they like without fear of governmental restraint or interferance (not that this has had much in the way of teeth for the past 30 years or so). I was apparently out on a limb, which was rapidly cracking under me.

 

Then my managing editor came back in and solved my dilemma. “Just call the bank and get the official word on this thing,” she told me. “We’re not going to run more than two or three inches on it in any case.” I was off the hook, and yet, I wasn’t necessarily happy about it. There was a story here and it wasn’t being covered.

 

I suspect many reporters in the national press feel the same way most days. There’s a huge story out there, in fact, there are many huge stories, and they aren’t being covered. And I’m sure this frustrates many decent journalists.

 

Well, maybe not the person who wrote the original story in the Washington Times. How they can be feeling I have no idea. I can’t even imagine how they sleep at night, personally.


9:21:49 PM    comment []


Tuesday, September 03, 2002

It's back-to-school now, which means listening to the children groan about teachers and homework; teachers groan about students and grading papers; and commuters groan about being stuck behind school busses in rush hour traffic. But, on the whole, wouldn't you think it would mean someone, somewhere was learning something?

It's certainly not the voters of this country, who consistently defeat most school referendums, allowing an underpaid, underskilled teaching staff to basically warehouse vast numbers of their children in broken down, aging infrastructures stocked with badly skewed and often outdated materials.

I know that, as a nation, we are absurdly anti-intellectual and yet, at the same time, highly critical of our educational system. And, as Arianna Huffington points out in today's column, we want only the best for everyone, but we're not willing to make the sacrifices necessary to ensure that everyone gets to have the best.

And I'm reminded of Ireland during the Penal Law days, when everything Irish was outlawed, including the schools. And how the Irish kept their culture alive through the Hedge Schools, which were literally that -- small classes run by traveling teachers on roadsides, hidden by large hedgerows.

I'm trying to picture the children of that day, being awakened in the morning for school. "But Ma, I don't wanna!" And that mother's ringing (and quite possibly stinging) reply. And the door closing on the young scholar's backside, as he makes his way to class. During times like that, I doubt you ever heard a teacher complain about parental apathy toward their children's education. And given that teachers, if caught, could be and were put in jail or killed, you were more likely to have a seriously committed teacher in charge of your son or daughter's education.

Madeleine L'Engle once said that religion would have more power and impact in our lives if it were outlawed. (Which is possibly why ultra-right-wing-conservative-Christians tend to paint themselves as the underdogs, even though they're the largest "denomination" in the country.)

But what if public education itself were outlawed? You'd have parents moving heaven and earth to find a teacher for their children.

At the moment, so long as public education is free and readily available, no matter how substandard it is, we settle for the face-saving complaint, the holier-than-thou pronouncimento, generalized finger-pointing in all directions -- anything so long as we don't have to, God forbid, actually DO something about the problem.

A limited amount of homeschooling is already an accepted part of the U.S. educational system. But if the educational system breaks down any further, the U.S. may have to begin a whole new construction phase.

I think it would be funny to see hedgerows in the inner city. And possibly quite refreshing.


8:20:27 PM    comment []


Monday, September 02, 2002

I've discovered a major downside to blogging. If you want to go find somebody's blog, and they aren't on the "most recent updates" or "most-read" sites, HOW do you find them? There needs to be a search function in the blogs area, methinks.

If there is one that I'm not aware of, I apologize. Bear with me, I'm new to blogging. I haven't even figured out how to do the links-on-the-side thing yet.

However...

All the fuss and furor over the potential baseball strike got me to reminiscing.

It was a very small "chain" of weekly papers. Three to be exact. And the third was added more for vanity reasons than economic reasons, since it was clear we would never pick up the ad revenue from the existing across-the-state-border papers our publisher swore he was after (since the Other Guys, who I had previously worked for) had crossed the border themselves and managed to cut into our ad revenues.

The operation had a total of one executive editor, one managing editor, three reporters, one editorial assistant (me), one secretary, one advertising executive, three to five ad reps on any given day and a business manager who hid out in a back office and told great stories when you wandered back into his domain.

We were owned by a daily paper, part of a group of "media concerns" which included daily and weekly papers, a few television stations and a handful of radio stations scattered across the country. So there was money in the organization. That much I knew. And that weekly newspapers were the "cash cow" of the print industry I also know. Good ad revenue for little actual expense.

But I also knew that our entire "editorial department" consisted of six people, two of whom were distinctly "management". And the executive editor was retiring.

So when Cindy (*names changed to protect long-standing friendships) offered to drive me home that day, I was puzzled, but not suspicious, although I only lived a block and a half away from work.

She parked in the lot behind my apartment, turned off the engine and handed me a small, blue card. (Yes, all these years later, I still remember the color of that damn card.)

"We've been meeting for the past several weeks," she told me, "and we've decided to join the union at the main paper. You don't have to, of course. Here's the card. The rest of us have signed. If you're going to sign, you have to get it in by tomorrow, though, o.k.? Thanks."

That was it. That was my full explanation of what had apparently been going on for some weeks unbeknownst to me. Which was scary. Because my family had always been union and one thing I knew - the point of unions was "safety in numbers". Get enough people together and you can claim some power for yourself. But we were tiny. Only four of us were eligible for this. How would it work? WHY would it work?

I tried asking questions, but got few answers. The decision had been made. The other cards had been signed. My decision was up to me.

On the surface it should have been simple, but of course it wasn't. The publisher of the main paper and, by extension, our publisher, had taken an interest in me about a year beforehand. He'd helped me out with clothing and getting into an apartment. When I'd lived farther away and had no car, he'd arranged for me to get rides home from the other employees. In short, he'd been more than kind to me. This would be something of a slap in the face to him.

Moreover, it would be a pointless slap in the face. We were four women at a small weekly outfit. Only one of us had been with the paper for any significant amount of time, the rest were all relatively recent acquisitions. And, bottom line, we could all be replaced. Easily. There was little hope that a union effort would succeed under those conditions.

But...there was the main union, which had been in place for some time. We would only be joining them, right? So we'd just get whatever contract they had, possibly modified to a slight extent to allow for our size and relative unimportance.

Plus, as Cindy had said, everyone else had signed their cards. I'd be the only one who hadn't, if I didn't.

But then, there was the publisher, a kind man who might not pay a lot, but who gave health insurance, life insurance, paid vacation and 401K benefits to even part-time employees. Never mind the personal interest he'd shown in me. Did I really want to hurt him like this? All for an effort that was doomed before it started?

The next day I turned in my card. Signed.

Of course, only then did I learn that we weren't going to be "part" of the main union (which wasn't a "union" proper, but a "guild"). We were going to be a "separate bargaining unit". I groaned as I saw this particular plan crashing into the deck and burning merrily. But I was "in" so I kept an open mind.

And the first thing that happened was a small slap in the face. From a friend. 

The managing editor was a really nice guy. We all liked him a lot. And we respected him, because he was good at his job. He had two small children, a daughter and a son. He used to tell us about doing his daughter's hair before school every morning. So that year, for his birthday, we got him a small, plastic Sesame Street lunchbox and filled it with little-girl hair paraphernalia, bows and barrettes and tiny scrunchies. It was carefully wrapped and, per office tradition, I made a card for him, which we all signed. Then we put the wrapped gift, with the card on top, on his desk while he was in a business meeting upstairs at the main paper (we were housed in the basement at this time).

I will always remember clearly what happened next. He returned from his meeting and stopped next to his desk, staring down at the gift. He just stood there for the longest time, staring at it, expressionless. It must have been two or three minutes before he moved.

He picked up the gift and the card, held them for a moment then crossed over to Ann's desk and laid them down gently.

"I'm sorry. I can't accept this," he said quietly. Then he sat down at his desk, turned to his computer and began typing. The silence was thick. It lasted for the remainder of the afternoon. It's aftereffects lasted much longer.

The next thing that happened was that we got co-opted. Our executive editor retired and instead of replacing him, our managing editor was elevated to his job title, though his day-to-day responsibilities did not change. However, that left the managing editor position open.

Imagine the shock when Cindy announced that SHE had been given the position. Not that she didn’t deserve it, she'd been with the paper since it's inception and had done everything from delivering it to writing it. But it was still a shock. Especially since that made her management.

I couldn't blame her for taking the position. She'd recently adopted a daughter and her main reason for getting behind the union effort was a real need for more income. This job promotion was more likely to give her the pay raise she needed than the union effort. Still, it was a shock to the system for the rest of us.

We were down to three members.

Cindy had been "point man" in our nascent bargaining unit. She had been the face-to-face person with management. Now Ann decided that SHE should have that position, and Gail was perfectly content to let that happen. Gail was the most recent addition to our staff and her husband was facing the almost-certain shutdown of his energy company job. He'd already begun sending resumes out all over the country. Gail fully expected to be moving away within the next several months. She had little stake in this effort.

It was Ann who had apparently instigated the unionizing effort to begin with. She had lobbied for a raise and had been told she was at the "top of her salary range", a mythical and widely-thought-of-as-arbitrary number that meant no salary hikes other than cost-of-living. Ever. So she'd tried an end-run around this system. Hence the union effort.

We were asked to vote her in as leader at the next group meeting of the main guild group. I knew Ann and liked her, but realized she should NOT be the person to deal directly with the company. Of course, Gail wasn't a likely candidate, either. And, although I'd never been in a leadership position in any union, I'd at least had enough experience with unions to know what to expect. Plus, I was older than the other two by at least 10 years.

But it was never going to happen. Ann wanted the position, Gail didn't care and would vote for her. When the guild president asked if there were any more candidates for the position, I remained silent and voted for Ann. I did so with a sinking feeling that turned out to be positively prescient.

Because Ann had all the enthusiasm and drive. What she lacked was the experience. And the backbone.

Management was relatively polite from what I heard. Condescending as all get-out, but terribly polite. We had drawn up a list of demands, aided by representatives from the main guild. These were read and put aside politely. We were offered a ten-cent-an-hour raise across the board.

At the time, the highest paid among us was making $10 an hour. I was considered part-time, not allowed to work more than 32 hours in a week, making $7 an hour. This was four years ago as I write this. I can remember my fury when I was told. "Hey!" I yelled, slapping the table. "I'm not blond, I'm not Candice Bergen and a dime does not impress me!"

Ann was convinced that this was progress. "At least they offered something," she said. The guild was less sanguine and made up buttons and desk-placards in support of our efforts.

The next move on management's part was to move us out of the area completely. We had been located in a city near the lakefront, the home of our parent paper and the town that the oldest of our three papers covered exclusively. Now the editorial department, with the exception of the executive editor, was being moved to a smaller town "out in the county", which we were told would facilitate our coverage area for the second of our three papers, which covered the rest of the county. It was also slightly closer to the towns and villages across the state border that our third paper had recently begun covering.

But it was something else as well. It was inaccessible except by private car. There was no "public transportation" as such going out to this village. And my car, as management well knew, had died some months previous. Making $7 an hour, I wasn't likely to get another anytime soon. They knew that too. And if I couldn't get to the new office...

I think they thought they had it covered, until I did an end run. I knew the publisher was backing his "team" in the negotiations, but I also knew he never got  his own hands dirty in such a fight. He was a gentleman of the old school. He let his hired hands do that stuff. He wanted to consider himself above that sort of thing.

And I took shameless advantage of this. I went to him. Directly. Walked into his office one afternoon, sat down, smiled at him and asked him directly to approve my managing editor's offer to drive me in and out of work. It meant officially putting me on first shift (I'd been the only second-shift person at the paper) and allowing "management" to "consort" with "the enemy". But it was allowed. Formally. The union effort lived on. It was shaky, but it lived on.

The next thing that happened was less pleasant. Gail wasn't the most stable of people. Easily emotional and far less emotionally committed to her job than the rest of us, it only took an over-the-top series of beratings by our new executive editor to get her to slam her notebook down one day shortly before the Great Move and quit.

I forget what she'd been raked over the coals for that day. I think she'd blown off an assignment due to extremely bad weather. She had a tendency to do that and I couldn't blame our editor for being annoyed, but he also knew that yelling at her in the middle of the office would, eventually, wear her fragile ego down enough to just say the hell with it. Which she said. She had a new, better-paying job within two weeks and a month later, she and her husband moved out of the area entirely.

We were down to two people now 

The drive out to the county office was a pain, made worse because Cindy had to come across town first to pick me up, then drop her daughter off at day care, then head out for the office. In the evening, she reversed the procedure. It was above-and-beyond-the-call and I'll always be grateful to her for doing it.

But my job was somehow changed, without being formally changed at all. Previously, I'd sat at a desk with the rest of the editorial department in the one large room we all shared. In the new office there was a small room that Cindy took for her own office and a slightly larger room where Ann sat. There was a desk in there for a potential replacement for Gail, but nobody sat at it.

I sat in the "lobby" area, at a desk normally reserved for the secretary. Which I was told I was now functioning as, though I kept my old title. I had all my old duties as well, except I wasn't supposed to write any "news" stories anymore. (We were a "happy talk" type paper, and actually only ran features.) I could still do the unbylined advertorials and rewrite the press releases, but that was all. This was a move on management's part to attempt to say, during negotiations, that I wasn't really "editorial" and shouldn't be part of the contract negotiation process. Not that it ever got that far, but that seemed to be their intent.

Still, with only one reporter and one editor doing the bulk of the writing for three papers, our executive editor filling in where he could and a small raft of columnists and stringers, they were forced to use me a few times. But not my byline. Cindy let me write several stories over the next few months, but also made me change my name so "management" never found out what I'd done.

I should have refused, but I loved writing and Ann didn't care. It meant less work for her. And she was working herself to the bone. With nobody technically covering the "third" paper, we were filling that space with rewritten press releases and usable copy from the other two papers, along with columnists and other filler. Still, it was a thin little paper and revenues weren't what they might have been, so Ann was being stretched to the max covering, essentially, two counties by herself.

Still, we managed for almost a year under these conditions. And got along with each other, despite the union effort.

The day we moved into the new office, however, there was an immediate problem. I sat down at my new desk and began arranging it, getting the computer monitor in the spot I wanted it, adjusting the chair, setting up my inbox...and putting my union placard on the corner of the desk where it could be seen by anyone entering the room.

Cindy went into the small kitchen on the far side of the "lobby" and was headed back to her office when she spotted the placard. Without breaking stride she plucked it off my desk.

"This is the reception area. Anyone at all might come through that door,” she said, pointing at the main entrance, which could only be accessed by climbing up a steeply treacherous wooden outside staircase to our second-floor office. “We can have these in the back office," she pointed to Ann's room, "but not out here." She then vanished into her office, with the placard. I didn't bother following her. Instead, I picked up the phone and called the representative from the main guild.

An hour later, Cindy came out of her office and sheepishly returned the placard. "I'm sorry," she said. "I shouldn't have even touched your stuff."

"It's o.k.," I assured her. And it was. We were all "feeling our way" through this mess and a little overreaction was inevitable. It was never mentioned again.

The main guild tried a "job action" next, since "negotiations" had dragged on for almost 10 months at this point. I was unsurprised by this, but it seemed to shock and confuse the others. They had expected the effort to take far less time. I figured that management was just waiting 'till either Ann or I called it quits. They had no real reason to cave at this point, if they'd ever had a reason in the first place.

The "job action" consisted of a few guild members handing out flyers explaining our "struggle" on the street outside the main paper during the business day, and a stack of  the same flyers placed inside the break room at the main paper. Since there were only two of us at the county office, both working the same shift, there was nobody available to hand out flyers in front of our office.

The newspaper reacted immediately and publicly, with an editorial disparaging the action and painting it as an illegal quasi-strike, which of course it wasn't. It was the mildest of "actions" and had no real teeth behind it. People not actually working that shift were the ones handing out the flyers and they were on the street outside the office, not on newspaper property at all. There were no pickets, just a few people standing on the corner, handing out flyers. The rest of the "illegally distributed" material was sitting on a table in the break room, until management removed it. Such a furor over a few pieces of paper that few would ever bother reading! What would they do in the event of a "real" strike?

Not that one was ever really likely. Because the next thing that management, months later, proved decisive. They offered another "compromise", but with an edge to it.

They'd give Ann about a third of the raise she'd asked for, offer nothing for me...and rescind all paid vacations for all employees of our paper.

It was silly, it was an empty threat...and it worked. Ann hesitated for almost two weeks, wringing her hands and agonizing over her potentially lost vacation while the guild representative tried to assure her that nothing of the sort would or could happen without affecting the non-union employees, who wouldn't stand for it.

But, after almost two years of this, Ann was tired and worn down and had possibly never really been up for the full effort at all. She'd been the most surprised of all that negotiations had lasted as long as they had. She'd expected a few meetings and a quick resolution. But then, she knew nothing about unions. And with the constant meetings and cancellation of meetings and postponement of meetings and one thing and another...she was bewildered and confused and clearly wasn't getting what she'd hoped for. Meanwhile, her best friend on the paper was now on management's side, everyone else on the paper except me was avoiding her like the plague and now she was looking at losing the few benefits she had.

She had recently married and she and her husband were hoping to start a family. If vacations could be taken away, so could health and life insurance. And her 401K plan. It was too much.

The next thing I knew, the guild representative called me and said that Ann had called for a vote to dissolve the bargaining unit.

But there were only two of us left in the bargaining unit. I asked him what would happen if our votes cancelled each other out. He said the bargaining unit would be dissolved anyway. I considered the matter and asked if it had to be a vote. He said it did, because of the cards we'd signed.

So they held a vote. A smirking member of management and several lawyers drove out to our county offices and set up shop in the kitchen. Ann and I waited. Finally, our executive editor arrived. They all huddled in the kitchen. Then Ann was called in. She entered. She exited. I was called in. I entered. The lawyer handed me a piece of paper and directed me to the table at the far end of the room, nearest the windows. I filled out the paper with my backs to the others, who stood clustered near the refrigerator at the other end of the room. I put my paper in a cardboard box with a slit cut in the top and returned to my desk. The others remained in the kitchen, talking quietly for a few more minutes. Then they came out, carrying the box. The lawyers and the executive editor left almost immediately. The smirker made sure to thank me for my participation. Then, thankfully, he left.

Ann never asked how I'd voted. I think she'd have been surprised, as I'm sure management was, that I'd voted not to dissolve the unit. Useless as the vote was.

And it all went back to why I'd signed that damned card in the first place. You see, I'd been raised in a union household and had lived through a few strikes. I believed then and believe to this day, that unions are a Good Thing. A Useful Thing. A Necessary Thing.

I believe this ardently. I believe that, unless we stand up for ourselves in the workplace, no employer is ever going to give us more than they are willing to lose themselves. Which is never a whole lot. If we want to better our situation, we are the only ones who can do this. We can't wait for some generous person to realize that we need more than a few kind words. We need to take care of ourselves in the workplace.

Yes, I was grateful to my publisher for the clothes, but I wanted to be able to buy clothes for myself. I was glad he'd helped me find an apartment and had paid the security deposit for me, but I'd have been happier to have been able to pay the security deposit myself. And the only way I'd have been able to do that would have been with a living wage.

My publisher was a kind man. But his kindness wasn't necessarily what I'd needed. What I needed was a living wage. And that was something his bookkeepers weren't interested in giving me. And apparently, neither was he.

Yes, the union effort was doomed from the start. It never would have worked with only the four of us to begin with. But I still believe that unions are important and I never miss a chance to say so.

And that's why I signed the card. Because, like it or not, if you're going to talk the talk, you have to be prepared to walk the walk, no matter how personally discomfiting it may be. If I want the right to say that unions are important and necessary, I can't back down the first time the issue comes up for me personally, just because it's uncomfortable. I'd have to give up my right to say what I believed.

And that right, above all others, is worth fighting for, even when the fight is doomed to failure.

I left the paper about four months after the union was dissolved. I understand Ann left about six months after that. I don't know what happened to her. I don't want to know. Cindy is still with the paper, and doing well. The offices are still out in the county, despite my prediction that they'd move back to the city after the union died. They've hired new people to replace those of us who quit. And, as far as I know, $10 an hour is still the "ceiling" on wages. And that's sad.

So laugh at million-dollar ballplayers going out on strike. And sneer while management walks away with every concession they can. And know that this is due, in part to your laughter and your jeers.

But remember, there are others in this country who both need and deserve the basic human right to try to better their lives. And if you can't respect the players or what they're fighting for, can you at least respect the institution that gives the rest of us a fighting chance?

Because, believe me, unions are still A Good Thing. Without them, major league ballplayers would be making the same salary as a fast food worker. And you, my friends, might be making even less.


10:58:54 AM    comment []


Sunday, September 01, 2002

Back in college, when we were all oh-so-earnest-and-deep, a friend threw out a question to a group of us gathered at a coffee shop.

"Who would you vote for," he said, fingers tented pompously, "if your only choice was between an evil man and a stupid man? And why?"

Of course, the first answer was "Mickey Mouse" followed by the perennial candidate, Pat Paulson, as well as Howard the Duck, who was running that year as well, as I recall. But John eschewed these choices, insisting that write-in votes weren't allowable and only these two candidates, the evil and the stupid, could be voted for. "And you must vote," he intoned gravely, "you cannot abstain. So which do you choose?"

There was a long silence. I wasn't about to open my mouth at that point. I had dated John and knew the bear traps he liked to set out in these little questions of his. But Cathy was game.

"I guess I'd have to vote for the stupid man," she said, after thinking for awhile. "He's not evil, at least, and he'll have people around him who can tell him when he's being really stupid. I mean, nobody governs all alone, do they?"

Everyone else just looked at each other. We weren't sure this was the "right" answer, but nobody was willing to go out on a limb and say so.

John waited for a few minutes and then sighed, dismissing us all as really hopeless. "Think about it," he said to Cathy, "who picks the 'people around him'? We don't elect them. He chooses them. And he's stupid."

Then he looked around at the rest of us, pityingly. "You'd have to choose the evil man, because self-preservation would limit the amount of damage he'd do to the country. The stupid man? He wouldn't know when or where to stop and the damage could be untold. Never vote for the stupid man. Never."

We assured him, and ourselves, that of course we wouldn't. Of course, this was long ago, when Jimmy Carter was still running for office. We had no idea that, 26 years later, we'd be stuck with the stupid man, whether we voted for him or not.

Isn't life strange sometimes?


5:50:21 PM    comment []


Saturday, August 31, 2002

Since you're here, I feel a need to explain this weblog. It probably doesn't need explaining, In fact, it is probably beyond explanation. But the need is still there and must be filled. Perhaps, at least, I can explain the name. 

It's origins spring from a small business, a pizza parlor, itself known by many names but remaining nameless here. It is one of the many pizza parlours and restaurants my friend Mike has worked at over the years, and quite possibly, the worst of the bunch. Why Mike worked there for so long, I'll never know. Many long-suffering friends and well-wishers nagged him about quitting for years before he finally fled to saner pastures. It was a hard, horrible, nasty place to work. 

Bad attitude was probably its best feature. And that attitude slopped over everywhere and onto everyone eventually. Mike is my friend and, when he isn't working for hypertense lunatics, he's a fairly decent human being. But he can be driven beyond endurance, which is how he came to name this particular corner of my universe. 

The caller was approximately middle-aged and very huffy. She wanted to know the prices of small, medium and large pizzas. Mike gave her the requested prices in a friendly, calm, businesslike manner. She then proceeded to argue over the stated price of a large pizza. However, the prices were all listed on the carryout menu she admitted she had in front of her. These prices had not changed, had never changed and were not likely to change anytime in the near or foreseeable future. 

The woman continued to insist that she had called earlier, had spoken to Mike personally and had been quoted an entirely different price on a large pizza. "Why did you tell me that?" she wanted to know. 

Mike explained that he had never spoken to the woman before, since he'd just come on duty, but that she may have been misinformed by someone else and, if that were the case, he was sorry, but the prices were as he had just quoted them. This had no effect on Madame, however. "Then, why did you tell me that the price was different?" she kept demanding. 

Mike managed to remain calm and even jovial for almost 10 minutes of this nonsense. Finally she asked the same silly question one too many times and Mike responded in the same pleasant, rational voice, "Well, ma-am, do you drink?" 

She, oblivious to the obvious, snapped, "No, of course not. What difference does that make?" 

And Mike replied, "Well, then, are you subject to fits and seizures?" 

To which her answer went something like, "Click." 

And this is where we get to my part in this affair. Because I am writing this page and it is only fair to warn anyone foolish enough to pause here long enough to view my vented verbiage and irrational ramblings that I am subject to fits and seizures. 

And these are some of them. 

Pat Christensen


1:31:10 PM    comment []




© Copyright 2002 Pat Christensen. Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.
Last update: 9/29/02; 4:33:22 PM.
Powered by