The Michigan Daily Edited and managed by Students at the University of Michigan Friday, August 6, 1976 News Phone: 764-0552 Goody-goody Woody? THE FAT MAN may have egg on his face. Now that MSUs State News has apparently linked Ohio State with offering accoutrements to prospective football players, we can sit back and enjoy the next round of the battle between Woody Hayes and the world of college football. Indeed, as we all recall, Woody played 'the part of the goody two shoes last week when he admitted that he was indeed the one who blew the whistle on MSU's foot- ball recruiting violations. We do not condemn Woody for it; apparently he did it in the spirit of good, clean football. But the State News' copyrighted article earlier this Week brings to the fore the pos- sibility that Woody's oper- ation is far from spotless. The newspaper alleged cash, promised Rose Bowl junkets and a coach's car as the embellishments with w h I c h OSU tantalized young athletes. Now, it's Woody's turn. We wait breathlessly to see if the tattle tale's team is also guilty of such soiled tactics. And if it is, we hope to see Woody kicked right out of Columbus on 0Qtdy his meaty rump. ~you into Mail: On hate tionis on DENUY letters, clericals with it th vidual rig these "in cehricals out very To The Daily: relevant "balance" Jacquelyne DenUyl's July 28 letter to the Daily puts blnes out management's union-busting line better than thes managers themselves. Consciously or unconsciously, she is a clerical helping management victimize other She doe clericals. DenUyl begins with the standard fairy tale of individ of the blithe and happy secretary: "I initially chose nature of to work as a clerical here because it was the most Her soluti beneficial job opportunity I had at the time in the till not area . . Iwas hired, given 'a merit increase and where to promoted based on mv ability and experience." Then not the in enters The Evil Union. conflict w superviso Our poor DenUyl suddenly is "stripped of (her) right before sh to a merit raise, ,no matter how good a job (she) may do." She is "forced to pay service fees to a group (she As to D does) not wish to join (taxes for Vietnam or Angola, or to opp anyone?), to abide by ideas (she does) not support rights in (as we are forced to 'abide by' Ford's or Fleming's of clerica ideas?), to be called 'sister' by people who are not organize even acquaintaces (could anything be more 'degrad- better wa ing' than to be called 'sister' by another human be- working li ing?), and to be molded into a worker (she) will not to the en' be." DenUyl (we shan't call her "sister" since she sonable" would be offended) - the Union has no need to "mold" Our work I-ow can they say that about me? Why, I'm right on top ofh esit uation a worker. Management and the capitalist ment fairy tales far from "reasonable", too. And as system have already done that. The ques- conscious clerical workers, we will permit neither e of recognizing an already existing reality. University management nor Jacquelyne DenUyl to take our union away from us! L OBJECTS that "equity does not carry e unquestioned right to strip all of our indi- hts." True enough. But what, pray tell, are dividual rights" of which DenUyl would find quickly that as a clerical worker she has no "individual rights" at all. Adding academic to her statements, DenUyl concedes "unfair rs do exist." s not see that the question is not the morality ual supervisors but rather the fundamental the managerial-supervisory 'apparatus itself. ion ("I will move if absolutely necessary") cork on any large scale. First, there is no- move to since the problem is the institution, ndividuals. Second, if she really did have a ith an unfair supervisor, without a union that r would have her moving out the door long e managed to move anywhere else. ienUyl's right to voice anti-union sentiments ose basic union ideas, she of course has those the union or out of it. But we, the majority ls, have our own rights, too: the rights to ourselves and to bargain collectively for ges and benefits and more control over our ives. These rights we cherish and will defend id. DenUyl may call our vehemence "unrea- if she wishes, but for us the issue is serious. ing lives are at stake. We find her manage- Vute "yes" for UAW Local 2001 in the August 5-11 elections! Helen Kelly Pat Schwartzman August 4, 1976 halte To The Daily: I received a letter from UAW Local 2001 today which really shocked me. It said "Perhaps you have read the numerous 'hate' leaflets, poisonpen letters to editors and anti-union, anti-UAW rumors and 'news' stories written by a few members of your Local . . ." The only "hate" letters and such that I remember seeing are those sent out by the union itself! I think that the union is only hurting itself with the type of letters they are sending out, always putting down, in a nasty, vio- lent way, the opposition. I have talked to more than one person, not supervisors or university officials ei- ther, that are being made sick of the union simply be- cause of the letters they put out! In my opinion, they would be a lot better off if they were to just state their business in the letters and leaflets they send out, rather than to waste our dues coming on so strong- ly against their opposition. Joann S. Jackowski Secretary Graduate School of Business Administration August 4 By Pete Schneeberger and John Gui llea n Olga, der ec fire 1a7/her seriouys *, A reyou sureyouve s'hovjghu'dgout' the conse?(uencfs 0 r/KC 0 0.