Dear Editor,

Pride At Work, AFL-CIO is disappointed with the insinuation that UFW's support of marriage equality is detrimental to farmworkers. Labor unions were founded to protect worker dignity and to ensure fair treatment of workers. Unfair treatment comes in many forms, and labor unions have made an effort to fight injustice on all fronts. Historically, labor unions have acted as a mouthpiece for the struggle for social justice. To quote Julian Bond, NAACP chairman, "I know the mutual benefits that grew from the historic alliance between organized labor and the movement for civil rights*benefits we all must work to strengthen and extend today."

Labor unionists take their commitment to justice and fairness seriously. "An injury to one is an injury to all" is a -fundamental sentiment in the brotherhood and sisterhood of unionists. When our brothers and sisters are denied the right to marry their partners, and therefore prevented from protecting their families, unions have courageously denounced this discrimination. The UFW's commitment to justice is courageous and pioneering.

Other unions have also called for marriage equality, including Service Employees Int'l Union (SEIU), the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), the Communication Workers of America (CWA), and the Office Professional Employees International Union (OPEIU).

These unions support fairness not only because it is the right thing to do, but because it is their duty to represent their members, members that are farmworkers, janitors, social workers, teachers, telephone operators and administrative assistants of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities.

The UFW was right to stand up and demand an end to marriage discrimination in California. Particularly vulnerable to harassment, intimidation and exploitation, farmworkers rely on the trailblazing, dedicated and undaunted mission of the UFW: equality for all workers. Labor is proudly charged with achieving equal access, fair treatment and benefits equity for workers. Julian Bond said it best, that the is a "historic alliance between organized labor and the movement for civil rights. Toiling daily in the labor movement, we work for social and civil rights with this motive and mission: If labor won't stand up for the rights of all workers to receive the same benefits, then who will?

Thank you,

Pride At Work, AFL-CIO
Washington, DC 20006

In a message dated 1/16/2006 10:28:20 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, dermaessence@yahoo.com writes:

I know a lot of things the UFW has done excellently, regarding farmworkers and many others. We are a vast network of people who have access to most of the top stories about farmworkers and their plight. Still a plight, unfortunately, for the farmworkers, because as we advance chronologically into the twentyfirst century, we do so at a de-evolutionary mode.

How can the richest and most "advanced" nation in the world be so insensitive to the well-or non-wellbeing of so many immigrants, who are probably the most documented people in the world. How many times do you think they documented Jose Gonzalez when they deported him so many times, using taxpayers money? Everyone knows how much USA needs her bottom of the rung workers. Slave days have not passed. USA will import them, then deport them when necessary, that way, no one will complain to better wages, or better conditions.

When we live in such a free country, it is just as bad to keep people out using a berlin-like wall, as it is keeping them in; especially under such false pretenses. We are the most insecure country in the world. United we stand, divided, we fall. Support the UFW instead of trying to destroy us. Remember, although there may be some who don't remember Cesar Chavez; there are so many more who do! We demand better coverage from the L.A. Times, instead of its contradictory and misleading recent series. La Huelga isn't over yet!

Mario A. Cepeda

Santa Monica, Ca. 90405

In a message dated 1/13/2006 4:08:10 P.M. Pacific Standard Time

Dear Editor,

I was the United Farm Workers, AFL-CIO representative here in Washington DC during the early 80's when similar articles appeared in your paper quoting some of the same people. Why would you take on the little guy like you do? This is history repeating itself in the LA Times. It is unfair that a struggling union be put on the defensive over these kinds of issues such as relatives of Cesar Chavez having positions in the union. First of all, as I'm sure you know, it is a small percentage. However, these are the people who have struggled, worked for $5.00 a week and deserve a living wage just as you and I.

In the 80's, because of your articles, I had to take time away from the important things that I was doing i.e. testifying before Congress to better farmworker conditions as well as trying to make certain that already existing laws were enforced, to defend the UFW against your accusations. I happen to have known the people of whom you speak, i.e. the late Cesar Chavez, Paul Chavez, Dolores Huerta, David Villerino for 30 years and do not feel as though I need to again defend such self sacrificing people. It is outrageous. You must be aware that in states other than California farmworkers are not even covered by labor laws. I would ask if you have written articles scrutinizing the corporate grower in your state to the extent that you repeatedly seem to try to do so with the UFW.

I remember the dreams of Cesar Chavez becoming a reality such as the farmworker radio station which is still operational and growing. Arturo Rodriguez is not only well respected as a union president by the farmworkers who elected him but by other leaders here in DC. President Rodriguez is an active and respected member of the AFL-CIO Executive Board.

I would suggest that in order to rectify the unbalanced portrayal that you have given of the only viable union representing the people who put food on your table every day that you sit down with the United Farm Workers and do a story on them from their perspective. Only that will satisfy those of us who consider your articles to be extremely biased.

Thank you in advance for taking the time to read my letter.

Sincerely,

Stephanie Bower

Silver Spring, MD 20901

In a message dated 1/13/2006 4:17:44 P.M. Pacific Standard Time

To the Editor,

I am astounded by the inaccurate, untrue and one-sided series of stories by Miriam Pawel which criticize the United Farm Workers Union for a lack of success in organizing farm workers. Where has she been all these years?

I've been a supporter of the UFW since the mid 1960s and can testify to their many successes in California and other states including over 30 union election victories, dozens of new contracts, improvements in both working and living conditions, wages, safety and housing to mention just a few benefits that the Union has gained for farm workers.

Could the UFW have done better? Of course. I know of no individual or group that has no room for improvement. The UFW operates on a very limited budget. If more people concerned with the betterment of farm workers' working and living conditions would contribute to the UFW so as to increase their operating capital, I'm sure that the very dedicated staff would be able to increase the union's effectiveness. As it is they do a lot with very little.

The LA Times, could contribute to the UFW's effectiveness by printing more balanced reports on the UFW's activities than the biased, one-sided articles by Ms Pawel, which paint a very inaccurate picture. She should go out in the fields and work with farm workers as I have and join in some of their rallies and walks as I have. Then she might be able to write more accurately about them.

Bryce Babcock

Cottonwood, AZ 86326

In a message dated 1/13/2006 7:04:40 P.M. Pacific Standard Time

January 13, 2006

Dear Editor:

Recently your paper has published a series of controversial stories regarding the United Farm Workers Union. The union wishes to publish their answer to this series and previous articles by your paper help establish their claims.

I remember many of the attacks that this brave union faced in the past including attacks by then governor Reagan. The union is, in my opinion, part of an anti-poverty

movement that has lost ground since the 1960s and 70s. Farm workers are among the most abused and impoverished people in this society. Are we asking the union to go it alone in helping farm workers gain decent lives and livelihoods? Because of corporate greed ( aided and abetted by this government) farm workers and other poor people are kept impoverished and abused and their numbers are on the increase. Greed and corruption escalates and social justice is ignored by the powers that be.

Those that care can ask themselves what they can do to help social movements such as the United Farm Workers Union better the lives of farm workers and other poor people. When we unite we are far more powerful and we can achieve great things.

In solidarity,

Ivy Rose Nightscales Williams

Seattle, Wa 98144

In a message dated 1/10/2006 5:52:50 P.M. Pacific Standard Time

Dear Editor,
After reading your series of articles on the United Farm Workers Union I am angry and disappointed that your large newspaper would publish such a one sided story.

I lived in the San Joaquin Valley for 16 years. Currently, I live in the mountain communities of Kern county. I have had years of working closely with many members of the UFW. After my husband and I
relocated in 1984 from Los Angeles to a small rural community in Tulare County, naively believing that we were moving our young children into a healthier environment, we were quickly educated on how unhealthy
and detrimental the agricultural heartland actually is for children and families who live and work there. The air is bad, and much of the water in the valley is polluted. In addition, many, if not most, of the public schools are underfunded and the dropout rate is high.

I was shocked to see how much of a big-business-industry farming actually has become - and how hostile many farmers and their good-ole-boy political cohorts are towards Cesar Chavez and the UFW, and/or any type of community organizing against being poisoned by pesticide drift, factory farms, toxic waste dumps, sludge (human excrement) moving in from Los Angeles, etc, etc...

I became a community activist while I lived in the San Joaquin Valley - and I have witnessed and experienced the "good ole boy" system work against the health and well being of children and families. As a mother and a concerned community member I can testify that the UFW is one of the few forces of justice in such a lopsided social and economic region.

I currently work a long side of union organizers and other UFW members. They are decent people with outstanding values. I don't see any of them feeding off any fat. There really is no fat - to be had. The living and working conditions of the San Joaquin Valley are very similar to what is happening in 3rd world countries.

But laws have slowly been established that are starting to protect the children and families of the farmworking communities. Much of that progress, as slow as it has happened, began and continues with the
UFW and Cesar Chavez' courage to start a movement to help people on the economic and social bottom stand up for themselves and fight the huge dominance of agribusiness.

Everyone connected with the LA Times should be ashamed of the recent UFW articles. I believe, once again, the good ole boys manipulated the media for their own end. I thought that the folks in LA were more
sophisticated than that. There I go being naive again. What a disappointment!

Linda MacKay
Member of The Association Of Irritated Residents (AIR)
and The Central California Environmental Justice Network
Lebec, CA 93243

In a message dated 1/13/2006 2:26:12 P.M. Pacific Standard Time

LOS ANGELES TIMES EDITOR

Miriam Pawell, in her latest report on farm workers may merit some attention. She has resorted to an old stand by -'lets trash the farm workers'. She will find that trashing farm workers and allies is neither patriotic nor American.

She will find that by faulting this group, she goes on to find fault with the American public across the country. As a farm worker volunteer of old, I was in on the organizing, picketing, demonstrating, striking, boycotting, etc end of the whole movement in the 60s and 70s

That was last century. The majority of farm workers were legal residents. Thousands of legal residents who were sick and tired of the abuse and exploitation. Cesar Chavez was a Godsend

In the last century, Cesar Chavez taught them how to be self sufficient, speak up for their rights, walk the halls of government, lobby fat cat politicians, that legacy still lives on into this century.

In the last century, field offices, hiring halls, boycott offices sprung up. Doctors, lawyers and varied professionals volunteered to help out. No pay. Just the sastisfaction that justice would prevail. It was euphoric.

In the last century volumes of activity took place before the farm workers gained union contracts. In the last century those same contracts were lost to conniving growers and treaasonous Teamsters. A Union, no less. That was last century.

In this century, farm workers continue to be informed via their own La Campesina radio. Service centers are sprinkled around the state, many have their own housing projects or own their homes, many members have received pensions. Filipino workers, who were rejected by American society have their own retirement Agbayani Village, thanks to Cesar Chavez.

In this century the UFW continues to advocate on many issues that affect the workers and migrants in general. The present Ag Jobs bill is supported by the Union and so on and on.

In this century, organizing continues. Non agricultural workers have appealed to the UFW to represent them. The obstacles of yesteryear are still present. Every Union has to struggle to convince scab mentalities that there is indeed strength in union. Every Union still has to confront union busting bosses.

In this century, it is estimated that there are between ten to twelve million undocumented workers in this country. Not all of them labor in the fields. It is not practical for those who continue to do so, to unionize.
What? Pay union dues and get deported tomorrow? Get real Miriam!

In this century, the present staff at the farm worker administration would be remiss if they didn't change a few things to meet todayh's standards.
This would include hiring professionals with some techno knowledge and who are able to disable a computer.
Of course they get paid. Personal sacrifices are so last century.

In this century, We, the people, in order to form a more perfect Union, continue to advocate and support farm workers.

Thank you
Hope Fierro Lopez
Fresno, CA 93704

In a message dated 1/13/2006 11:35:43 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,

James P. DeMaegt

January 13, 2006

Editor, Los Angeles Times

Dear L.A. Times Editors:

I am writing to object to the bias and unfairness in the series of recent articles on the United Farmworkers Union. The articles purported to be a factual survey of the history and current status of the UFW. In fact, however, the articles were a disguised method of asserting the political opinions and beliefs of the author of the articles. Such opinions and beliefs are not appropriate for the news section of the L.A. Times and instead belong on the editorial page. It is also reprehensible that such opinions were disguised as factual reporting.

The articles gave facts about a number of Chavez family members working for the UFW. Then while still purporting to be reporting facts, the articles asserted that having those family members working for the Union was inappropriate and very harmful to the proper purpose of the UFW. Actually the Chavez family members have worked for the UFW at very low rates of pay for a number of years, are very efficient and qualified workers and are very beneficial to the proper purpose of the UFW. And in no case do Chavez family members assert improper control over the democratic decision making process of the UFW.

The articles gave facts about the "charities" and non-profits associated with the UFW. Then while still purporting to be reporting facts, the articles asserted that those non-profit organizations harmed and detracted from the proper purpose of the UFW. Actually the non-profits contribute greatly to actual union organizing by the UFW. The non-profits are self-funded by contributions from the public who believe in their missions and no union dues are used for thier projects. The non-profits also not only do not take any resources away from the organizing efforts of the UFW but do many jobs that would otherwise have to be paid for out of union dues and thus the non-profits allow the union members to use much greater proportions of union dues for direct organizing efforts.

The articles gave facts about a number of union staff members who have left the UFW over the years. Then while still purporting to be reporting facts, the articles asserted that they staff members who have left the UFW over the years were purged and kicked out of the Union. The articles further stated as facts the assertions that the staff members who left the UFW had the "correct" ideas and practices relating to union organizing efforts and that the UFW officials who stayed with the Union had incorrect theories and practices of union organizing.. Actually few, if any, staff members have ever been "kicked out" of the UFW. Naturally some staff members leave the UFW over the years for a variety of reasons. And also quite naturally there is always many disputes and disagreements about the best way to organize farmworkers and the best way to conduct a union campaign. Some staff members did leave the UFW because their ways were not always adopted by the UFW but that was their choice not to remain and they were not "purged" as the L.A.
Times articles assert. And it is certainly far from being a "fact" that the ways and methods of those who left the UFW would have been better for the union organizing effort then the ways which the UFW actually adopted at various times in its history.

I would ask that the Los Angles Times return to a more professional method of reporting the news and that it report facts in its new articles and put its own opinions and the opinions of its writers and reporters on the Editorial page where they belong. I would also ask that the L.A. Times stop the practice of asserting the opinions of its writers and reporters as facts mixed in a purportedly news article.

The fair side of the UFW story needs to be told in the pages of the Los Angeles Times in order to balance the unfair and biased story told in the recent four part series on the United Farmworkers Union. Please allow the UFW to tell its side of the farmworker organizing saga. Please provide as much space on the pages of the L.A. Times for the UFW to tell its side of the story as was granted to those who have asserted their opinions about what they believe are bad aspects of the UFW organizing efforts.

The story of the farmworker organizing effort is an important part of history of California itself. Please let at least one version of that historical story be told by those who have given their lives to organizing farmworkers and are part of the current UFW effort to continue the struggle to organize farmworkers.

The decision of the Los Angeles Times on this matter may well have a significant influence on the welfare of thousands and even millions of farmworkers and other low paid workers in the State of California and throughout the United States. Please do the right thing. Please let the other side of the story be told.

Sincerely yours,
James P. DeMaegt
Inglewood, California, 9030