Earlier in the semester, avid readers of the Brown & White might have noticed an editorial written by the “Lehigh University Students for Workers” and “Lehigh Valley Students for Workers” which made various claims concerning the Sodexo employees at Lehigh University. Some of these claims accused Sodexo management of threatening employees who were considering unionization, as well as accusing local Sodexo management of threatening Lehigh students for speaking with Sodexo workers. The response from Sodexo workers was quick and fierce, in the form of various letters sent to the Brown & White which denied many of the claims found in the Lehigh University Students for Workers and Lehigh Valley Students for Workers’ original article. It is interesting to note that shortly after the hysteria began, it suddenly ended (as often occurs with sensitive issues on college campuses) with no final determination regarding the events in question. In my opinion, it is not right that such an important issue be ignored for no reason other than to prevent real, controversial, and sensitive topics from being considered on Lehigh University’s campus. With this in mind, I began researching exactly what had happened with this unionization mayhem.

My research initially led me to look at the current state of unionization in American labor. Currently labor unions in the United States are facing a major crisis in terms of heavy membership shortages. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are currently about 124 million employed workers in the United States, of which 12.3% are unionized. This is a sharp decline from the nearly 22% that were unionized in 1980. As a result, labor unions are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain large memberships and maintain the support of a significant proportion of American laborers. With this background in mind, the current state of affairs in the organized labor sector becomes increasingly clear.

Put in the simplest of terms, labor unions are at war with each other, with each union fighting for memberships. Under normal circumstances this would not elicit major problems, except that for some reason the labor war has recently polarized and focused – a dismaying turn of events for both employers and employees. Here’s how it’s happening: large unions such as the SEIU (Service Employees International Union) and Unite Here are competing for membership so that they can increase the strength of their respective organizations. Furthermore, in order to attract members, it is much easier to absorb already unionized workers than it is to convince non-unionized workers to unionize. As such, there has been a recent trend over the past several years in which large unions absorb small, local unions in order to adopt their memberships. Currently, the SEIU is the most active participant in this game, with nearly 2.2 million members. The SEIU is currently spending vast amounts of its funds to take over other unions and muscle workers into their union rather than others. As a result, other unions such as Unite Here have stood up against the SEIU and tried to turn workers against the SEIU in the hopes that they will join Unite Here instead. Following suit, the SEIU has responded with the same policy towards potential Unite Here members.

So, what does this all mean? This means that these unions are spending membership dues in order to expand their influence in comparison to other unions, rather than assist the workers they represent. What does this have to do with Sodexo? The answer is simple, Sodexo has been targeted by the SEIU as a large source of new membership potential, and the strategy is straightforward: misinform the public about Sodexo labor policies to incite workers’ passions and encourage them to join the SEIU before they can consider joining Unite Here or other unions. Targeting Sodexo makes sense, considering that Sodexo is one of the largest food service providers in the United States. With nearly 120,000 employees (the majority of which are in food service) and approximately 45,000 new employees hired yearly, Sodexo is a tempting target for any labor union looking to expand.

Looking back at the Brown & White editorial, it is clear that not only is the information presented about Sodexo misleading, it is also consistent with the misinformation campaigns utilized by the SEIU to gather popular support. In order to sift through the misinformation, I spoke with Sodexo’s Director of Public Relations, Ms. Monica Zimmer and received an official statement on the labor issue in question as it pertains to Lehigh University. According to this statement, more than 15% of Sodexo employees have chosen to unionize, twice the national average! These employees are happily protected by the unions of their choice with no harassment from Sodexo administration. In addition, this statement reaffirms Sodexo’s commitment to serving its employees and respecting their rights to unionize or not unionize based upon their own free will.

As a result of these events, it is evident that these are trying times for Sodexo and its employees, who are frequently hounded by the SEIU and other union representatives trying to subvert their competition rather than protect their existing members.  This is not an isolated incident of Sodexo management abusing employees as some would believe, but a skirmish in a larger war fought against the good employees of Sodexo as well as against all other unionized and non-unionized employees. Rather than support these unions, which are looking to help only themselves, let’s dedicate ourselves to helping the employees of Sodexo by respecting their opinions, acknowledging their rights, and understanding the full story before jumping to conclusions.

Sodexo’s Statement

Sodexo is a target of the SEIU’s campaign, which spreads misinformation about the company’s labor practices, misrepresents its record on a variety of issues, and attempts to force the company into dealing with the SEIU to the exclusion of UNITE HERE and other unions. The SEIU’s tactics include loosely combining a host of unrelated issues affecting the economic conditions of workers, including the national health care debate and the lingering effects of a historic recession, and somehow blaming the impact of these issues on Sodexo.

Sodexo employs more than 120,000 workers, most of them in the food service industry, at nearly 6,000 client accounts throughout the U.S. We hire more than 45,000 workers annually. Our workforce is more than 15% unionized, which is more than twice the national average. Sodexo has more than 300 collective bargaining agreements with labor unions across the nation, and has very good relationships with other unions that represent its employees. We respect the rights of our employees to unionize or not unionize, as they choose.

It’s unfortunate that the SEIU is promoting untrue allegations against Sodexo to further its own interests and attract new members during its ongoing dispute with rival unions.

• Our benefits eligibility is the most liberal in the U.S. service industry. We are the only company that does not count prescription drug costs against medical benefit limits; we offer a separate prescription drug limit. We also are the only company to offer long-term disability benefits to hourly employees. Despite the economic slowdown, Sodexo recently expanded its 401k plan and the company matching benefit to reach more employees—both hourly and salaried—than ever before.

• We believe the choice of whether or not to have a union represent them is important to our employees.  We strongly believe that when faced with making a decision regarding union representation, our employees have the fundamental right to hear all sides of the issue and want to ensure that the process allows our employees to make a free and informed choice without harassment, intimidation, or coercion, and that the rights of all of our employees are safeguarded.

• Sodexo stands by the results of any valid secret ballot election that is monitored by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and is free of objectionable conduct.

Each year, there comes a time to discuss the topics of diversity, equality, and justice. These topics are critical to our future as a nation and as a society.

To begin, what is diversity? Common sense would suggest a definition describing an abundance of variety within a group. In a social sense, this meaning may be expanded to reference the state of having a wide variety of different people with different ideas, backgrounds, and experiences all coming together and representing themselves as equals. Few would disagree that this arrangement is representative of a diverse society. Yet for such a simple idea, why does it seem that the ultimate paradigm of social diversity constantly eludes us? This answer lies deep within our social fabric.

It is important to note that there seem to be significant differences in the various ways diversity is interpreted. Diversity is acceptance of and respect for others regardless of whether one agrees with another’s thoughts and actions. Once phrased in these terms, diversity can be described as a respect for man’s natural right of freedom. Mankind has received no greater gift than that of freedom, a right granted by nature and inalienable by any other force. Only recently has the opportunity arisen for people to escape the will of despots and tyrants to live in a state of at least partial freedom. As such, I would consider it a terrible crime to unjustly deprive another person of his or her natural rights. It is here, where diversity and freedom intersect, that the greatest dangers to our natural rights exist.

Oppression has plagued societies throughout history, and there are even contemporary instances of oppression in the United States and abroad. From injustice, a hierarchy of leadership arises in the form of special interest groups, who strive to restore natural rights to their oppressed constituencies. It is through such advocacy that rallies are formed, speeches are given, and the creation of diversity positions in schools, businesses, and governments occur. By itself, this is not inherently bad, as it may indeed serve its purpose as intended. However, one must consider the cost of such activism when left unchecked. It is easy for unbridled activism to diverge from its original purpose and move towards the oppression of their perceived former oppressor through unrealistic demands.

For this reason, it is imperative that the progression of diversity through activism and advocacy be checked with prudence. Care must be taken to ensure that both the immediate and long-term consequences of our actions serve to benefit society as a whole and do not merely further segmentation and oppression. The reasoning for this is simple: special interest groups are, by definition, specific concerns within society, which tend to seek measures which not only ensure their own liberties, but which also occasionally advocate the recession of natural rights belonging to those they consider their oppressor. Such a mindset is based in the concept that an advantage to one must result in a disadvantage to another, a belief which is simply not true. There is no reason why everyone cannot enjoy their natural rights together, as this is the true meaning of diversity.

As a conservative thinker, I have been labeled as racist, prejudiced, unjust, immoral, sexist, intolerant, and even evil in the past, an experience shared by many conservatives. After hearing these accusations, I always question whether I am actually racist, a good person, or if my beliefs are wrong. These are difficult questions to ask but after long and hard consideration, my answer became clear. My friends emigrated here from various countries around the world, subscribe to a wide variety of political views, differ in sexual orientation, practice different religions, and are of varying ethnic backgrounds. In this respect, I embrace the differences in others around me to improve on the diversity of my life. In my mind, such a realization begs the questions: who is really intolerant, the man who believes in every person’s inalienable rights or the special interest group that divides society, pushes our differences to the forefront, and calls for the alienation of others in order to further their own interests? It is good to seek diversity, but prudence must dictate our course when dealing with something as sacred as our natural rights. Our freedom is both the most powerful and delicate possession we have as human beings, and as such it is imperative that we seek change and improvements in the diversity of our society, but we must take care to let our actions to be guided by the wisdom that all of society must progress without fear of further division and oppression.

Beginning a new year at Lehigh comes with a unique set of challenges, from buying books to organizing classes and from arranging housing, to getting involved in clubs. Amid all this complete chaos, we also need to find time for our classes, sports, homework, studying, and of course, socializing.  In this season of mayhem, political involvement is probably not a high priority for the average student, myself included.  So when I was asked to write a story on local Lehigh County candidate Scott Ott, I put aside these reservations and went to see him speak on campus.  I was immediately impressed by the message he was spreading.

Nobody would doubt that there are major political debates taking place, and that political lines are now changing in movements that have never before occurred in our generation’s lifetime. Of course, many of us feel that in the grand scheme of national politics, we each as an individual serve very little importance. Not a single one of us could stand up to Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, Bush, or any national candidate and tell them that we strongly disagree with their actions, nor could we express our approval to them directly. They are too distant from us.  It is simply impossible, or so we are made to think.

Scott Ott is amongst the newest breed of politicians to emerge, known as “common sense” candidates, who believe that government is too distant from the people and should be made more local. Their promise is simple: bring increased accountability and responsibility to the government, one step at a time.

Scott Ott is currently running for the position of Lehigh County Executive against long-time incumbent Don Cunningham. Scott’s plan is to increase the fiscal responsibility of the county government by taking control of the budget, and in doing so, help decrease our growing national debt.

Lehigh County is currently $20 million dollars in debt and the budget for the upcoming year, as currently posted, will have fully exhausted all its reserve funds. By cutting down on unnecessary and inefficient spending, Ott hopes to prevent a major 2011 tax hike.

This amount of money, according to Ott, is within the control of the local people, as compared to the futility of attacking a federal deficit currently on the order of trillions of dollars. Ott plans to accomplish these cuts by approaching department heads within the county to find methods of achieving across-the-board savings and increasing efficiency. This will include holding all departments more accountable for remaining true to their budget than in the past – an idea that is unheard of and unprecedented in many parts of the government.

Additionally, Ott plans to cut unnecessary programs, such as economic development offices and tree planting programs, at least until the economy improves and revenue can cover their expense. While these actions may initially seem reckless, only three years ago, Lehigh County spent $60 million less than the current budget and was no worse off for it.

These millions of dollars are not all from Lehigh County; in fact, only one quarter of Lehigh County’s revenue is directly collected through taxes, the rest is “pass-through money” which is collected by various counties, given to the state, and then distributed by the state back to the counties along with mandates on how it must be spent. In many instances, provided funds are not sufficient to cover the expenses of mandated programs. On this major issue, Ott says, “I am going to stand up to the governor in those situations and say ‘We are not going to spend this extra money.’”

I challenged Ott to explain the importance of these issues for Lehigh University students, who live in the county adjacent to Lehigh county.  He confidently responded that success in Lehigh County will spur the election of similar, “common sense candidates” in neighboring counties – eventually influencing state and federal politics as well.

If local governments started balancing their budgets and preventing tax increases, neighboring regions would be foolish not to adopt similar practices. And this responsibility would have no choice but spread to the state and beyond, because citizens of this great nation would not accept anything otherwise. Ott believes that we can take control of our federal government, we can stand up to major political forces, and we can do this by taking control of government on a local, tangible level.

Consider this: If the federal government is debating a major issue, this will not likely have an immediate daily impact on your life. Even if you feel very strongly on this issue or are directly affected by it, most likely you will never get the chance to stand, testify, and debate before Congress. If, on the other hand, your town decides to build a road through your backyard, you’re not going to miss that next town council meeting to voice your opinion.  Ott wants to see more opportunities for people to stand up and enforce accountability in government.

There can be a change in politics – a move away from a system of elected officials who act irresponsibly and against the will of the people, towards a new breed of politicians through the election of principled people in local races. And the role of young adults, college students especially, is vital in making this change. If we become involved, then the outcomes may be surprising. According to Ott, “It’s not that we’re apathetic, it’s just that we think we can’t win.

Even for those outside of Lehigh County, including most Lehigh Students, there are major issues lying in wait. One such issue is a sales tax increase. Currently, the Pennsylvania sales tax is set at 6%.  However, pending legislation in Harrisburg, each county could gain the option to increase that tax by one percentage point to a 7% sales tax. This amounts to a 16.66% tax increase; and is rumored to be a matter of particular interest for the mayor of Bethlehem.

For those of us who feel too busy to get involved, Ott has some advice.  “Twenty to thirty years from now, you will never remember what you got in that science course. You will never remember your grade in English Literature or what the paper was about that seems so important right now. You’ll never remember this stuff; it will all become literally meaningless to you. Once you get that diploma, all of that just kind of fades into insignificance. What you will remember is the real stuff that you did, the way you got involved in a cause that was bigger than yourself.”  We should all should take this advice and get involved in important causes, stand firm for what we believe in, and make a change for the better in our lives, our school, our local government, and our great federal republic.