Page 4-Tuesdav: August 12: 1980-The Mrchinan Dbilv

Employees urge boycott
of Wordprocessors

atthe Uieriy o ihg
Carter's naivete
P RESIDENT CARTER has once again demon-
strated his naivete in the arena of foreign af-
fairs by approving a new strategy for nuclear war
-one that gives priority to attacking military
targets in the Soviet Union rather than to
destroying cities and industrial complexes.
Carter's contention that the best way to prevent a
major conflict with Moscow is to be capable of
waging a prolonged but limited nuclear war is
completely ludicrous.
It is almost inconceivable that Carter believes a
"limited" nuclear war is possible - any war which
kills millions of innocent people can hardly be ter-
med limited.
Secretary of Defense Harold Brown recently
reassured allied governments about Carter's latest
nuclear strategy, saying the United States "has no
desire to fight a nuclear war."
How reassuring. We were beginning to worry.
For to us it is clear - Mr. Brown's protests aside -
that the United States has proclaimed to the entire
world that nuclear war (albeit "limited") is indeed
a viable option toward resolving conflicts with the
Soviets.
The new U.S. policy on nuclear war brings to
light the pressing necessity of a return to U.S.-
Soviet arms limitation talks, for if a true and_
lasting world peace is to be achieved, these talks
must~be resumed.
We had hoped that Secretary of State Edmund
Muskie, when he took office in May, would work to
overthrow the present anti-SALT climate that per-
vades Washington. Unfortunately, Muskie has ap-
parently not been able to reestablish the peaceful
arts of persuasion and compromise as the most im-
portant tools in foreign affairs. Indeed, Muskie had
not even been consulted about Carter's new war
strategy. We hope Muskie's presence in
Washington will forestall any further foolish moves
on the part of the Carter Administration.

SWEATSHOPS AND
UNION-BUSTING - Unfor-
tunately are still with us. You
may have noticed the picket line
at The Wordprocessors, 211 S.
State-a copying, typing, and
printing business patronized by
students, professors and many
other members of the Ann Arbor
community. The picketers, many
of them former employees, are
calling for a consumer boycott of
The Wordprocessors until the
owners end their unfair labor,
practices. The Wordprocessors'
employees have never been
unionized and have had to rely on
their own strength and on com-
munity support. We therefore.
urge you to honor the boycott by
taking your business elsewhere.
This boycott is the culmination of
a twelve-month history of labor
problems at The Wor-
dprocessors.
In August 1979, the National
Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
supervised a union election at the
shop. The vote count, which was
not determined for severalo mon-
ths due to a complicated series of
challenged votes, eventually
resulted in a disappointing tie.
Employees then came unde r a
twelve-month election ban which
requires that they wait until
August 1980 before holding
another election.
IN APRIL of 1980, twenty-eight
employees (including three out of
four managers) engaged in a

By Judith Allen
spontaneous walkout in response
to a series of highly questionable
employer labor practices, many
of which appeared to
discriminate against known
union supporters. Only
six employees remained
working inside. The 28 workers,
many of whom had never
imagined themselves on a picket
line, were fired by the owners
shortly after they walked out. Af-
ter eleven days of picketing, most
of the striking employers were
called back to work and hoped to
begin good faith negotiations with
owners. The NLRB was called
in to investigate the labor dispute
and has issued a complaint on
behalf of the 28 employees which
alleges that the owners of The
Wordprocessors engaged in
numerous unfair labor practices.
The complaint calls for full
reinstatement with back pay of
all striking employees. A court
hearing is scheduled for Decem-
ber 8, 1980.
Since the return to work, the
owners have systematically laid
off, fired, or harassed to the point
of quitting, all employees who
returned after the strike. In three
and a half short months, the
owners have successfully
eliminated all formerly striking

employees who would have been
eligible to vote in the upcoming
election. Many of those workers
had been long-time employees
who had invested time and effort
in what they had hoped would be
a "future" at The Wor-
dprocessors.
The present boycott is in
protest of what all ex-employees
and concerned community
leaders believe to be very
grievious "union busting" tactics
on the part of the owners of The
Wordprocessors. Regardless of
your personal opinions of unions,
we appeal to your sense of justice
and ask you to honor this boycott.
It is against the law to
discriminate against employees
for their union activity; and the
most recent "union-busting" tac-
tics have resulted in loss of jobs
and deprivation of employee
rights to vote in a democratic
union election.
Again, we urge you to support
this boycott and take your
business elsewhere until such
time as The Wordprocessors
demonstrate that they deserve it.
There are many other copying,
typing, and printing services
available; if you would like
specific suggestions, the people
on the picket line will be happy to
help you.
Judith Allen is a former
employee of Wordprocessors.

E
E
I
I

LETTERS TO THE DAILY:
Don 't criticize pore spelers

I I'

To The Daily:
. I have always been oposed to
those who condem pore spelers
and, in their smugness, confuse
the inability to win a speling be
with illiteracy. To offen an in-
dividual's writing ability is
overlooked by those shalow
critics who know, the literal
diference between repetitve and
reititive, or response and rispon-
se. Who cares?
The August 6 Daily editorial en-
titled, "''U' students and illit-
teracy," complained of
numerous 'abuses of the English
language' found on the UGLJ?
suggestion board. Six of the seven
examples cited involved spelling
errors. From this, a majority of
the Daily's Editorial Board con-
cluded that U-M students are
"obsesses with delusions of gran-
deur," and are, "incompetent." I
believe the reader was to infer'
from these statements that the
Daily Editorial Board feels U-M
students are illiterate. This "en-
tertained" the Daily staff.
SHOULD THERE be room for
individualism' in spelling? Cer-
tainly, if too many words are
misspelled, written com-
munication breaks down. Then
again, if everyone spelled words
the same, that is to say "correc-

tly," life would be uniform and
dull and the Daily staff would
have no entertainment.
What is the object of writing?y
The Daily Editorial Board would
have us believe it is to see how
many words we can put down on
paper without misspelling any of
them. If, perchance, the object of
writing is the communication of
ideas, then misspelling a word or
two is a petty offense. If the
author's message is com-
municated, does it matter
whether he expressed is with sign
language, smoke signals or
misspelled words?-
Words are mere tools with
which the author bilds abstract
ideas. Comprehending -ideas
requires imagination, Among my
firends who were spelling bee
winners and are now professional
secretaries or amateur jour-
nalistsw, I find little imagination
and little ability to comprehend
abstract ideas. They insist

messages must be built with the
"correct" tools.
If the Daily Editorial Board
used less ink on petty tool inspec-
tions and viewed the finished
product, they would gain a
measure of respect from the "in-
competent" students who they
condemn. If they editorially per-
sued worthwhile topics of student
concern, such as the messages
represented on the UGLI
suggestion board and stopped
name calling the losers of
spelling bees (who have been
adequately humbled), they would
not invite the disdain of "gran-
deur deluded" English majors.
Stick to journalism you jour-
nalists and leave the writing to
writers. Please remember,
when you point your finger at
someone, three more are pointed
back at you. At times I find your
newspaper quite "entertaining."
--Paul Jones
August 5

I
I
I
I

Letters and columns represent the opinions
of the individual author(s) and do- not-
necessarily reflect the attitudes or beliefs
of the Daily.

HAISA-CAR 1