I don't have any questions for the UFW to answer. I just wanted to send a quick message of support to the UFW, the wonderful people who work hard everyday to achieve justice, and the hardworking campesinos who remain at the heart of the struggle. I was completely dismayed by the LA Times article, not because it made me waver in my beliefs about the union or the truly remarkable man that Cesar really was, but because I know that this negative attack can taint the beautiful legacy of Cesar and the dedication of so many who have sacrificed their life and livelihood so that others may be able to live with dignity and respect in the fields.

I've had the honor and privilege of visiting La Paz on two separate occasions with Professor Jose Calderon from Pitzer College on our service learning spring break trips. I have been able to briefly meet and interact with members of the Chavez family, current and past organizers, campesinos, and others who fought tooth and nail for la causa. The message that Cesar and the union taught an entire generation remains in my heart. We can make a difference. Si se puede! My support for the UFW remains as strong as ever. I will do my part in reassuring those around me that the UFW indeed works for the people. While Cesar and Dolores were leaders of la causa, achieving justice and respect for the workers will always be the heart and soul of the union. Que viva la union, y que viva Cesar Chavez! Si se puede!

In solidarity,

Aurora Ignacio

In a message dated 1/13/2006 9:17:08 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
I am very dismayed to read your one-sided reporting. If anything, Caesar Chavez and the UFW have been involved in a David & Goliath struggle from the beginning. Simply surviving against the odds of the mega-corporations that control the fields is testament to their tireless dedication. Unfortunately, people still retain bucolic visions of family farms, without realizing the iron grip they maintain on their workers or the corporate influence they wield on local & national issues.

I look forward to comprehensive in depth reporting on these issues.

John Papandrea
NY NY

In a message dated 1/12/2006 9:15:33 P.M. Pacific Standard Time

Greetings ( I don't know if you are "dear"- somehow I doubt it) Editors,

Miriam Pawel must be moonlighting for the Growers Association, Agribusiness, the Chamber of Commerce or the Chemical & Pesticide Industry. Pawel's professed outrage at the UFW creating a movement to ensure a successful long term organizing community is absurd. Yeah those $37,000 and $100,000 salaries are really shocking. Giving a price break to a long term VOLUNTEER - what are they thinking!, and an attorney charging $200 an hour- unheard of!!! Creating a variety of ventures to secure many aspects of building a movement- how dare they!!!

All that bias, slanted language and buzzwords that should be used for an article on the real scandalous criminals of our society- Abramoff and the thieving thugs in Washington who are actually breaking the law, disgracing their offices, violating their oaths, lying, stealing, betraying the public trust and making a mockery of their contract with the American people. How about a four part series naming names, listing salaries, homes, possessions, vacations illegal activities, lies, scams etc. with the vigorous condemnation Ms. Pawil has reserved for the UFW.

The broken contract is that of the LA Times abandoning real investigative journalism for sloppy, transparent attacks on a successful, law abiding union organization working on behalf of a better life for the least valued and most important workers in the country.

You won't get completely away with it because most people who support the UFW are thinking people and well informed , and wary of corporate scams, trickery and use of the media as a tool of influence. Most of us have already lost respect for much of the LA Times "reporting".

Although slimy hit pieces may influence the herd mentality dunderheads in congress which was probably the purpose of such a flimsy charade. Many legislators are easily led, operate daily in an echo chamber, and actually believe the media ( especially TV!). Coincidentally, politicians and the media industry both have the same bosses. ( It's certainly not the public)

A year or two from now will we get late breaking story revealing corporate influence and collusion? another corrupted "journalist" ? Business deals under the table? Will there be an exposee of the Times ? Mea culpas long after the damage is done? The usual?This contract - one essential to a functioning democracy -has been broken for a very long time.

Maureen Cruise

Pacific Palisades, Ca 90272

In a message dated 1/12/2006 5:17:40 P.M. Pacific Standard Time

The recent series of articles in the L. A. Times on the United Farm Workers by Miriam Pawel are one-sided. It fails to take into consideration the present difficulties of organizing farm workers in the fields, many who are immigrant and seasonal workers. Unlike other unions who can sustain their efforts through collecting the dues of year-round workers, the UFW has had to look beyond the worker's dues for survival. Given these conditions, it is understandable why the UFW has had to develop other non-profit, independently-run entities in order to sustain and institutionalize its efforts. Those of us, who have continued to work with the union and its organizers over the years, know the sincerity of their leadership in seeking to institutionalize a movement without losing a long-term commitment to what is in the interests of the farm workers and all workers.

We understand that, even under these difficult conditions, the UFW has recently won 32 election victories in the fields and negotiated dozens of contracts with the largest strawberry, rose, winery, and mushroom firms in California and the nation.

Jose Calderon

President, Inland Valley and San Gabriel Valley Latino and Latina Roundtable

Professor in Sociology and Chicano Studies, Pitzer College

Michi and Walter Weglyn Endowed Chair in Multicultural Studies, Cal Poly Pomona University

In a message dated 1/12/2006 5:40:45 P.M. Pacific Standard Time

Dear Sirs;

I've been a Times reader and subscriber for most of my seventy years, and your recent series of attack articles on the United Farm Workers union reminded me all-too-vividly of the LA Times of the 1940's. In those days labor unions of all varieties were deemed unwelcome by the people who counted in Los Angeles -- the Merchants and Manufacturers Association, the membership of the California Club and of course Norman Chandler's Los Angeles Times.

Vicious "revelations" of union misdeeds were an everyday commodity in the news columns of the Times, not to mention its editorial pages. Particular hatred was reserved for the "radicals" who were said to be stirring up trouble on the Agricultural fronts, in the fields of Salinas and the Central Valley where John Steinbeck's Oakies were feared, mocked and detested as alien migrant workers. If you don't believe me, have a look in your own archives. It did not escape notice at the time that the Chandlers were major stakeholders in vast agricultural holdings in California, beginning with the vast Tejon Ranch. The true story can be found in the writings of Cary McWilliams, or indeed in the classic insider's expose "Billion Dollar Blackjack" by William G. Bonnelli.

How tragic and disgusting it is that now, in the guise of supposedly defending the downtrodden migrants in today's fields, the Times is once again taking up the shotgun of the Vigilantes, and leading the posse to lynch the same phantom villains - evil and venal left-wing union organizers. That today's big financial, agricultural and real estate interests have a big stake in killing off unionization of farm workers is all too obvious. They have fought the UFW at every turn, with political deck-stacking and strong-arm tactics, from one
end of California to the other. And now they have recruited a once-great newspaper to do their dirty work, in the name of "investigative journalism".

Sincerely,

Robert Potter
Santa Barbara, CA 93109

In a message dated 1/12/2006 7:40:44 P.M. Pacific Standard Time

Dear Sir:

Please stop Miriam Pawel's attack on The United Farm Workers!

It's shocking "The Los Angeles Times" would join in on attacking the very people who help the labor that keeps a major part of California's economy strong and vibrant.

Were it not for The United Farm Workers, greedy growers would have even bigger profit margins by paying pittance for wages and then gouging the consumer.

How is it the growers themselves are rarely subject to articles exposing their numerous and on-going abuses? Apparently Ms. Pawel has the guts to take on The UFW, yet cowers at exposing growers and their anti-labor tactics.

I guess the American dream of coming to America, working hard, and bettering yourself isn't suppose to be accessible to the very men and women who keep that dream alive for California's growers.

Regards,

Joe Botz
Sacramento, CA 95823

In a message dated 1/12/2006 3:50:07 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,

Dear Editor,

I have been following your recent four part series "UFW: A Broken Contract" very closely and am upset about the irresponsible journalism by the Writer Miriam Pawel. The piece poses itself as responsible investigative journalism but reeks of opinion, misinformation, personal ties between the writer and interviewees, and political agenda. I take issue with such a four part attack being published on the front page of such a major and respected newspaper like the L.A. Times which commits itself to responsible journalism. I also have many issues with the piece itself and the information it provides.

First of all I take issue with the first day of the attack in which Ms. Pawel criticizes the UFW's attempt to build a Pan-Latino movement and not just organize workers in the fields. This effort should not be criticized but commended especially as the Latino population continues to grow and become the majority of the population in the sate of California. the need for social change in our state and our communities is not limited to just the agricultural fields. A vision and focus on the bigger picture is respectable and not to be criticized. Just as Cesar Chavez and Martin Luther King jr. had visions of social change that stretched past the fields of California and the segregated south, so too do today's leaders of the UFW share a vision of larger social change that reaches across the country to all levels of society. positive change for the entire Latino population is positive change for the farm as well. secondly, Ms pawel criticizes the union for building political clout. without political clout and the ability to lobby, legislative change is difficult if not next to impossible. Most unions contribute funds to candidates but how many actually have the ability to run campaigns for a candidate in areas where the Union has strong support? the UFW's ability to actually do something like that should not be considered entrepreneurial or viewed as a money making venture. rather, it should be viewed as a testament to the work the union has done over the years to build its political base so that it can run campaigns and be a force in state politics. it is to be commended not criticized.

Another issue I have with the first part of the attack written by Pawel is her criticism of the UFW's Radio Campesina network of radio stations throughout the southwest. Clearly as a top columnist and editor for the times Ms. Pawel is aware of the power and ability of media to reach the masses. if she wasn't she would not have wasted her time writing such a slanderous piece and placing it in a four part series on the front page of a major publication like the times. however, her criticism ignores the power of media and the UFW's leadership's ability to recognize the power of media in reaching people especially in the era of information. having the Radio Campesina network gives the union the unique opportunity to be able to reach listeners and supporters throughout the state and the southwest. this ability is especially important during election years and boycotts and is an ability many unions or organizations would love to have especially given the importance of media and its role in shaping the world we live in. during the age of information and high speed media in which news reaches viewers, listeners, and readers faster than ever the UFW should be commended for its successful radio network and not attacked.

In the second day of the attack, Pawel attacks the UFW's fundraising efforts and paints the Chavez family as corrupt individuals that embezzle funds. the family breakdown of who does what and what their roles are look like a mafia organization breakdown. this is wrong! this is slanderous. these are people who have dedicated their lives to the movement created by their father. many of them could have gone on and been highly successful in many other fields. instead they stick by the cause and strive to build economic and social justice. Pawel criticizes the union for having about a dozen family members as paid staff but does not make any mention of the fact that these people have been with the UFW since their childhood. she also does not mention what a small percentage these family members comprise compared to the over 400 other paid staff the UFW has on its payroll. she paints the picture as if the Chavez family is a group of millionaires living high up in the Tehachapi mountains in big expensive houses when in fact they live only a short walk away from the humble house they grew up in. in regards to the amount of money they actually make as salary, Pawel acknowledges that the Chavez's make less than similar officers in comparable organizations. of course this acknowledgement gets only one sentence and is nestled in the four page attack. clearly her intentions for the second day of the attack are to hurt the UFW's monetary support base and discourage others from making donations to the UFW. Pawel says that they exploit the image of the founder to get rich when in fact they invoke his name to build a bigger support base. Pawel does the only exploiting. she exploits information and quotes to enrich her political agenda and her reputation as a hard hitting journalist. the UFW should be commended for its ability to fundraise the way it does not attacked!

In the third day of the attack Pawel claims that the problems facing the UFW began 30 years ago when many of its new leaders were "purged". In fact, the problems that face the UFW have been around since before the UFW was ever founded and are the reason that all previous attempts to organize agricultural workers had failed. the problems that face the union and make their ability to organize difficult have nothing to do with the removal of Marshall Ganz or Eliseo Medina. instead the problems stem from a constant influx of new workers creating a high turnover rate in the fields, the unwillingness of growers to negotiate contracts or make concessions to workers, lack of public awareness and support, opposition to labor from governors Reagan, Wilson, and now Schwarzenegger, and the lack of politicians willing to make a stand in the capital. Furthermore, she questions the UFW's and Cesar's leadership in the late 70's when the union was height its peak calling Cesar "erratic". having a bigger picture that stretches beyond the fields is not erratic leadership and it is wrong for Pawel to characterize such a great leader and icon like Cesar Chavez in such a negative light. he had a vision and although people like Ganz may not of understood his vision it was still there.

Furthermore, Pawel criticizes the "purge" and says the UFW leadership had lost tough with the workers in the field because they were so far away. she sympathizes with Ganz as if he were. he might have been a good organizer but he could never have been in tough with the workers as much as Cesar was. Cesar was a farm, born from farmworkers. that is something he always has in common with the workers no matter where the UFW headquarters was. Ganz could never have that nor could he ever really understand the plight of the farmworkers because he was a college volunteer from an IVY League school on the east coast. Coincidentally Pawel is also an alumnus from the same university. its ironic how Ganz is painted as such a great leader and Cesar Chavez is painted as erratic. Furthermore, Ganz was not kicked out because of his difference of opinion. differences of opinion were and continue to be respected. that was one of the positives about playing "the game" that Cesar brought to the staff. Marshall Ganz was kicked out for trying to stage an overthrow of the Unions leadership because he had a difference of opinion. differences of opinion are respected, internal overthrows are not. Pawel says that the "purge" was about control for Cesar when in fact it was about control for Ganz who wanted to be a great leader like Cesar. he was wrong and still is wrong to this day. however, this side of the story does not get heard and does not get reported when Pawel only quotes her friends and gives one side of the story. traditionally history is written by the winners but in this case Pawel only interviewed the losers of a power struggle to paint them as victims and trash the current leadership of the UFW. part three is full of opinion but does not give both sides of the story, and as everyone knows there is two sides to every story. her story paints Chavez as erratic and sympathizes with Ganz. Cesar was a humble leader and a quiet man while Ganz did and continues to push his image and his agenda. he wanted to be Cesar but never could. Perhaps Ms. Pawel's objectivity is fogged by her ivy league connection to her friend Marshall Ganz.

The fourth day of the attack is less harsh but I still have many issues with it. the title " a success story but not in the fields" diminishes and casts aside all of the acheivements the UFW has made over the years. Eliseo medina is a success story as are many that were with the union in its early days. but why is it that he is a success story and not the Chavez family? they too came from nothing to build something great out of their lives, the only difference is they stuck with the union and are still with the union. once again the picture Pawel paints is slanted and paints one group in a positive light and the other in a very negative light. she builds up Medina so much perhaps because of her personal ties to him. any Google search will tell you that she is good friends with Medina's wife. isn't that hypocritical to criticize one groups personal ties while ignoring the fact that your personal ties are the directive force behind such slanderous attacks? perhaps because of her ties to medina, the vice-president of the SEIU, she builds him up and tears down the UFW and Chavez so that Medina can make a move against the union with declining membership? its possible.the paper says that in 1986 medina and the SEIU took over a rival union which was failing and declining in membership. he boasts " the minnow swallowed the whale". most recently the SEIU took over/merged with the United Domestic workers union (UDW). so it is entirely possible for Pawel to write such a damaging piece citing only failures and misappropriation of funds in an effort to damage one groups support base and build up the man and his group, Medina, who she has close personal ties to. she has praised his leadership abilities, she has praised his successes which should be praised and commended. but when juxtaposed with the so called failures of the other group Pawel's motivation has to be questioned. Consider the source is something people are taught to do when sifting through information and that is especially true in pawel four part attack on the UFW.

The UFW has made many achievements over the years and with such anti- labor governors as Ronald Reagan and Pete Wilson such accomplishments should not be cast aside and taken for granted. with no help at the highest peaks of state government and with growers unwilling to negotiate, such small victories like forcing growers to provide toilets and drinking water for workers become big victories. it makes the big victories, like the repeal of the bracero program and the outlawing of pesticide spraying while the workers work, huge victories, especially when the state and its growers have fought tooth and nail not to give anything to the workers. Pawel points out that in real dollars workers making today's minimum wage make less than union workers at the peak of the union. but she makes no mention of the next to nothing wages the workers made before the UFW Much more than the tangible gains earned by farmworkers, the farmworker movement helped fuel the Chicano Civil Rights movement. this movement gave the older generation of Chicanos a sense of pride many never felt before and continues to give the current generation a sense of pride, hope, and direction for the future. this aspect of the movement is one that people like Pawel and Ganz can never understand.

Lastly, such an opinionated piece shows where Ms. Pawel stands politically and who her ties are with. True investigative pieces are not as agenda driven as this piece. Her body of work including her piece damaging democratic Mayor of new York City, Mario Cuomo, show her political alliances to the republican party and bring into question her motivation for writing such an attack at the beginning of an election year. Clearly her motivation is to damage the political base the UFW has in order to neutralize its effectiveness in the upcoming elections. That is called being a political pundit, a talking head, not a responsible journalist. Responsible journalism calls for a Birdseye, objective view of all of the issues at hand and does not focus solely on numbers nor the opinions of those that were kicked out of the Union for dissent. it definitely does not call for attacks to be made because of personal ties to the dissenters. as any sociologist, statistician, or newsperson will tell you, numbers and stats can be placed together to tell any story the writer wants it to tell.in Pawel's case she is well aware of that and the readers of the times need to be aware of that fact also. She tries to make the numbers speak of failure and corruption in an effort to tarnish the Chavez image and legacy in an effort to hurt future funding efforts and damage its political base. By only giving one side of the story Pawel paints the slanted picture she desire and does not give readers an accurate glance at the UFW. Perhaps opinions by volunteers that have stuck with the union and did not leave would give a more complete snapshot of the UFW instead of bitter opinions from lawyers and organizers that wanted pay raises. Perhaps Ms. Pawel should use her voice for good, and for change instead of trashing a Union that makes those efforts. perhaps she should focus her work on the Enron's and Halliburton's of the world that in fact do get rich by backroom dealings. I don't buy her piece or her story and the readers of the times shouldn't as well. attached is my name and address. if Ms Pawel so desires because of my criticism of her special report she can mail me a pigs head as she did to a Newsday columnist in 1997 for also being critical of her work. my name and address are attached.

Si Se Puede! Que Viva Cesar Chavez!

Danny Ybarra II

El Cajon, Ca 92019

In a message dated 1/12/2006 4:24:05 P.M. Pacific Standard Time:

Dear editors,

I am deeply disturbed by your recent articles against the United Farm Workers. My family has deep ties to farm labor, from my farming Chicano ancestors to my older brother who was denied santiary conditions when he picked stawberries in Gilroy as a teen to support us in times of poverty. I support the UFW and continue to donate to their work because they continue to fight for the rights of farmworkers. Their recent win over Gallo proves their courage and tenacity. They have also consistantly urged me and other donors to support legislation that is in the best interest of farmworkers and have lead organizing drives onimportant labor rights issues. I feel good about my choice to donate to UFW
because their skillful community organizing is keeping the dream of civil rights alive for Latinos, the poor and immigrants of all backgrounds. Your recent articles against UFW have been devoid of objectivity and I am disappointed by their lack of journalistic standards. I urge you to end this biased propaganda and give UFW and their supporters as much column space as their detractors.

Sincerely,

Amrah Salomon Johnson
San Francisco, CA 94702

In a message dated 1/12/2006 12:08:49 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,

Letter to the Editor:

Newspapers like the LA Times need to keep the public informed about the food we eat because as consumers we have the right to know, but this article attempts to destroy the only organization that day-in and day-out defends those who harvest that food. What Pawel didn't do with her misleading analysis of the union, she did with outright distortions.

Historically no farm worker union survived, except for the UFW. The UFW just celebrated its 40th anniversary. Further the Chavez extended family has kept Cesar's legacy alive by continuing his work in many areas that otherwise would be ignored, and thankfully they are finally getting a decent wage, commensurate with their responsibilities. If not for the farm workers union, the plight of farm workers would be kept away from sight under the trees and the vines, away from the glare of public opinion.

Rebecca Olivares

Edinburg, TX 78539

In a message dated 1/12/2006 12:04:10 A.M. Pacific Standard Time

Dear Editor,

Miriam Pawel got her history wrong.

The legacy of Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta does not begin or end with organizing only farm workers.

Chavez began his political activism in 1952, organizing large scale voter registration and citizenship drives among Latinos for nearly a decade through the Community Service Organization. Working with Dolores Huerta, Fred Ross Sr. and others they registered over half a million Mexican Americans to vote,. helped almost 50,000 to become U.S. citizens and gain social services. Before building the farm workers union they challenged early urban renewal efforts which would decimate low income neighborhoods; integrated segregated recreational facilities; won paved streets, sidewalks, traffic signals, and health clinics in low income communities; and fought against police brutality. With lobbying from farm worker union co-founder Huerta, immigrants also won access to government assistance programs. For the first time, the California state driving exam and voting material became available in Spanish.

Approaching Martin Luther King Jr.¢®¡Ís birthday, it is crucial to realize that the strength of both the civil rights movement and the farm workers movement is the ability to build bridges between diverse communities. It is a tremendous accomplishment that Chavez, Huerta, and Ross Sr.¢®|s legacy extends from urban areas to rural communities, that a union running an election for farm workers can be actively supporting gay and lesbian rights. Back in 1987, when there was less popular support, Chavez was the key national labor leader addressing the National Lesbian and Gay March on Washington.

It is fitting that efforts are made to remember and continue the true, complete legacy of organizing both inside and beyond the fields, an inspiring lesson for future generations.

Angie Fa, PhD
San Francisco, CA 9411